Skip to content


Dhara Singh Vs. Gayan Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All186(1); 45Ind.Cas.761
AppellantDhara Singh
RespondentGayan Chand
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908, section 115 - revision--jurisdiction--mistake of law, whether ground for revision--promissory note, liability of minor on. - - we may mention that the court was clearly wrong in holding the minor liable on the promissory note on the finding of fact arrived at by it......that he was a minor at the date of the note. the munsif held that he was a minor and dismissed the suit. in appeal the subordinate judge found that the defendant was a minor but that he had fraudulently misrepresented his age to the plaintiff, and on this ground reversed the desision of the munsif and decreed the suit. the preliminary objection is that the suit being of the nature cognizable by a small cause court, the code does not provide for a second appeal and that the defendant is not entitled to apply in revision under the provisions of section 115. it is quite clear that the court had jurisdiction to determine the matter and in exercise of its jurisdiction, if it made a mistake in law, this does not entitle the party against whom the decision is to come here in revision. we may.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application. The suit was brought upon a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that he was a minor at the date of the note. The Munsif held that he was a minor and dismissed the suit. In appeal the Subordinate Judge found that the defendant was a minor but that he had fraudulently misrepresented his age to the plaintiff, and on this ground reversed the desision of the Munsif and decreed the suit. The preliminary objection is that the suit being of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, the Code does not provide for a second appeal and that the defendant is not entitled to apply in revision under the provisions of Section 115. It is quite clear that the Court had jurisdiction to determine the matter and in exercise of its jurisdiction, if it made a mistake in law, this does not entitle the party against whom the decision is to come here in revision. We may mention that the Court was clearly wrong in holding the minor liable on the promissory note on the finding of fact arrived at by it. We reject the application but under the circumstances we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //