Skip to content


Moti Lal Vs. Gangadhar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All171; 29Ind.Cas.176
AppellantMoti Lal
RespondentGangadhar and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115--judgment delivered--formal decree not prepared--case decided--appeal allowed--revision, whether maintainable. - - the application is for revision of an order dismissing the applicant's objections to a receiver's report, because the applicant failed to deposit in court rs. the applicant having failed to deposit the money, his objections were dismissed. but this attempt was defeated by the other side, who managed not only to procure the preparation of the decree but also arrested the applicant in execution thereof even before the formal decree had been prepared......awarded to the plaintiffs and the receiver on account of costs if they appeared to be entitled to costs. the applicant having failed to deposit the money, his objections were dismissed. the plaintiffs thereupon withdrew their objections; the subordinate judge accepted the report of the receiver and directed that a decree should be prepared for the sums specified in that report with costs and interest. by means of applications to this court the applicant endeavoured to delay the preparation of a formal decree; but this attempt was defeated by the other side, who managed not only to procure the preparation of the decree but also arrested the applicant in execution thereof even before the formal decree had been prepared. the proceedings in this case since december the 9th 1914 have been.....
Judgment:

Chamier, J.

1. This is an application by the defendant in a suit brought against him by the respondents for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The application is for revision of an order dismissing the applicant's objections to a Receiver's report, because the applicant failed to deposit in Court Rs. 220 as directed by the Subordinate Judge. It appears that the applicant's objections were filed On December the 2nd, 1914, and that he had at the same time applied for the issue of summonses to witnesses to support his objections. The order passed on that was 'file with the record.' Seven days later the case was taken up by the Subordinate Judge, who proceeded to examine the objections. He evidently came to the conclusion that many of the objections had been put forward in order to gain time and to prolong the proceedings, and he ordered that the objector should deposit Rs. 10 for each objection, or Rs. 220 in all, to be awarded to the plaintiffs and the Receiver on account of costs if they appeared to be entitled to costs. The applicant having failed to deposit the money, his objections were dismissed. The plaintiffs thereupon withdrew their objections; the Subordinate Judge accepted the report of the Receiver and directed that a decree should be prepared for the sums specified in that report with costs and interest. By means of applications to this Court the applicant endeavoured to delay the preparation of a formal decree; but this attempt was defeated by the other side, who managed not only to procure the preparation of the decree but also arrested the applicant in execution thereof even before the formal decree had been prepared. The proceedings in this case since December the 9th 1914 have been certainly of an extraordinary character, particularly the proceeding in which the applicant was, so to speak, made to bet Rs. 10 on each of his objections. If I could see my waY to interfering with the orders that have been passed, I should certainly do so, though I cannot say what would be the proper order to pass if the merits of the objections were enquired into. Under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, this Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by a Subordinate Court and in which no appeal lies. There has been some difference of opinion as to what amounts to a case within the meaning of this section. But there can be no doubt that a case had been decided before this application for revision was presented and that an appeal lay to this Court. The Subordinate Judge had delivered judgment in the case, and all that remained was the preparation of a formal decree. It is quite impossible for me, consistently with the decisions of this Court, to hold that this application is maintainable. The applicant's remedy is evidently by way of appeal against the decree, and the fact so much pressed on me by the applicant that an appeal will be a most expensive proceeding is no reason whatever for allowing this application.

2. I accordingly dismiss it with costs.


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