Skip to content


B.B. and C.i. Railway Vs. Raghib Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935All437
AppellantB.B. and C.i. Railway
RespondentRaghib Ali
Cases ReferredIn Faqir Chand v. Harkishun Das
Excerpt:
- - learned counsel has failed to produce any ruling in which this court has interfered in civil revision where a small cause court has refused to allow restoration.orderbennet, j.1. this is an application by a defendant in civil revision under section 25, small cause courts act against an order refusing application for restoration of a suit. the order states:the suit was decreed ex parte on december 14, 1933, after waiting and waiting long enough for the defendant who went off to call his vakil who never turned up. under such circumstances i refuse to set aside the ex parte decree.2. learned counsel urged that on the day that the suit was decreed ex parte in the absence of his client, an application for restoration was made at 1-45 p.m., and two days later, an application with security was made as required by section 17 small cause courts act. learned counsel has failed to produce any ruling in which this court has interfered in civil revision where.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bennet, J.

1. This is an application by a defendant in civil revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act against an order refusing application for restoration of a suit. The order states:

The suit was decreed ex parte on December 14, 1933, after waiting and waiting long enough for the defendant who went off to call his Vakil who never turned up. Under such circumstances I refuse to set aside the ex parte decree.

2. Learned Counsel urged that on the day that the suit was decreed ex parte in the absence of his client, an application for restoration was made at 1-45 p.m., and two days later, an application with security was made as required by Section 17 Small Cause Courts Act. Learned Counsel has failed to produce any ruling in which this Court has interfered in civil revision where a Small Cause Court has refused to allow restoration. In Faqir Chand v. Harkishun Das 1929 All. 599 there was an order for restoration by a Munisif and it was held by a Bench of this Court that in revision this Court could see if the grounds found were sufficient in Law. That however is a different matter. In the present case the Court has held that the grounds alleged were, not sufficient. It is a matter of discretion as to whether the Court below should or should not allow restoration. Where it refuses to allow restoration I do not consider that this Court should overrule it in revision.

3. Accordingly I refuse this application with costs.


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