Skip to content


Girwar Singh Vs. Shah Ram Chander - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929All586a; 117Ind.Cas.110
AppellantGirwar Singh
RespondentShah Ram Chander
Excerpt:
- .....first class, gave a decree for the small sum of rs. 33 and odd. the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the learned district judge, and that officer purported to set aside the order under appeal and remand the suit with the direction that accounts should be made up under certain directions given in the district judge's judgment. the applicant then filed a second appeal; but in the course of the hearing of the appeal he took up the position that his petition of appeal might be treated as an application for revision. a preliminary objection is taken that this court has no revisional power over this case.3. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. the situation seems to be this. the suit was filed after the new tenancy act of 1926 came into force. under section.....
Judgment:

1. This is a defendant's application in revision purporting to have been made under Section 115, Civil P.C., and arises under the following circumstances:

2. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court, brought a suit against the applicant for recovery of a certain amount of money, which was below Rs. 200, by way of profits, the applicant being the lambardar of a village. The Assistant Collector, First Class, gave a decree for the small sum of Rs. 33 and odd. The plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, and that officer purported to set aside the order under appeal and remand the suit with the direction that accounts should be made up under certain directions given in the District Judge's judgment. The applicant then filed a second appeal; but in the course of the hearing of the appeal he took up the position that his petition of appeal might be treated as an application for revision. A preliminary objection is taken that this Court has no revisional power over this case.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The situation seems to be this. The suit was filed after the new Tenancy Act of 1926 came into force. Under Section 242 of this new Act an appeal has been allowed in a suit for profits from a decree of the Assistant Collector, First Class, only where the valuation of the suit exceeds Rs. 200. It is clear therefore, that no appeal lay, in this particular case to the District Judge and this is the complaint of the defendant appellant. The first question therefore is whether a second appeal lies. The reply of the respondents is that a second appeal is forbidden, from an order of remand, by Section 248(3), Tenancy Act of 1926. This objection seems to be sound, and we hold that no second appeal lies.

4. As for revision, the jurisdiction of the High Court, as conferred by Section 115, Civil P.C., has been taken away by Section 264, Tenancy Act. The revisional power that has been conferred on the High Court by the Tenancy Act is the power to be found in Section 253 of the Act itself. This section gives jurisdiction to the High Court in cases decided by revenue Court, where an appeal lies to the District Judge. We have already stated that no appeal lay, in this case to the District Judge. The result is that the order of the District Judge is not open to revision by this Court. The application fails, and is hereby dismissed with costs.


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