Skip to content


Sukhraj Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All834; 101Ind.Cas.603
AppellantSukhraj Singh and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredMansoor Husain v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- - 2. a bench of this court in 1921 has decided that a previous application for revision to the lower court should be considered an essential step in the procedure and that failure on the part of the applicant to submit his application to the lower court will operate as a bar to the application being entertained by the high court: it may be argued that the latter object is attained by the appeal to the district magistrate as well as it would be by an application in revision;kendall, j.1. this is an application for the revision of an appellate order of the district magistrate of benares. no previous application for revision has been made to the sessions judge, and the only question that i have to consider is whether the present application is barred by the omission of the applicant to apply in the first place to the sessions judge.2. a bench of this court in 1921 has decided that a previous application for revision to the lower court should be considered an essential step in the procedure and that failure on the part of the applicant to submit his application to the lower court will operate as a bar to the application being entertained by the high court: sharif ahmad v. qabul singh a.i.r. 1921 all. 30. it has been argued in this case that there has been an.....
Judgment:

Kendall, J.

1. This is an application for the revision of an appellate order of the District Magistrate of Benares. No previous application for revision has been made to the Sessions Judge, and the only question that I have to consider is whether the present application is barred by the omission of the applicant to apply in the first place to the Sessions Judge.

2. A Bench of this Court in 1921 has decided that a previous application for revision to the lower Court should be considered an essential step in the procedure and that failure on the part of the applicant to submit his application to the lower Court will operate as a bar to the application being entertained by the High Court: Sharif Ahmad v. Qabul Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 30. It has been argued in this case that there has been an appeal to the District Magistrate and this should be deemed to have the effect of an application in revision. The question of procedure was discussed by Mr. Justice Piggott in Mansoor Husain v. Emperor [1919] 41 All. 587, which decision is quoted with approval by the Bench. The objects of laying down the rule of practice as given above, are, in the first place, to prevent the time of the High Court from being wasted by frivolous or unsustainable applications; and, secondly, to obtain an expression of opinion by a Court of superior jurisdiction, such as that of the Sessions Judge or of the District Magistrate, in case the matter should eventually come before the High Court. It may be argued that the latter object is attained by the appeal to the District Magistrate as well as it would be by an application in revision; but an application in revision should, and generally does, cover different grounds from an appeal, and I can find no support in the decision of the Bench for the view that it is unnecessary to make an application to the lower Court for the revision of an order merely because that order is an appellate order. For these reasons, the present application must be and is hereby dismissed.


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