Skip to content


Gurdwara Anandpur Vs. Kartar Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 65 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952P& H122
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 22, Rule 1; Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantGurdwara Anandpur
RespondentKartar Singh and ors.
Appellant Advocate H.R. Mahajan, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Daljit Singh, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in..........of the district judge and a rule was issued by me on the 3rd may, 1951. 2. the order passed by the learned judge en the 5th january 1948, is so patently illegal that it seems to me to be necessary for setting aside that order and it is unnecessary therefore to go into other matters. by the death of a general attorney of a litigant the suit does not abate. the law of abatement applies to parties and not to their agents. the order of the learned judge was, therefore without jurisdiction, illegal and absolutely improper.i, therefore, sot it aside under my general powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. in view of this it is not necessary to go into other matters. 3. i, therefore, allow this petition, setaside the order of the 5th january, 1948, anddirect that the.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. This case shows utter ignorance of the law of procedure on the part of the trial Court and I cannot congratulate the learned gentleman appearing for the petitioner in regard to the conduct of the case. Gurdwara Anandpur known as Mandar Baba Bhakari Dass brought a suit through its Mahant Ram Singh for possession of certain lands on the 19th January, 1943. On behalf of the Mahant his general attorney Malla Singh was conducting the case. This Malla Singh died and after his death it came to the notice of the Court presided over by Mr. Augustine that the agent was dead and on the 5th January, 1948, he ordered that the suit had abated. By what process, of reasoning he came to this conclusion is not quite clear. The legal advisers of the plaintiff instead of objecting to the order as being without jurisdiction and illegal made an application on the 5th January, 1949, to set aside the abatement. This application was under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was dismissed on the 4th August, 1950. An appeal was brought against this order, but the learned District Judge held that no appeal lay and a revision has been brought against this order of the District Judge and a rule was issued by me on the 3rd May, 1951.

2. The order passed by the learned Judge en the 5th January 1948, is so patently illegal that it seems to me to be necessary for setting aside that order and it is unnecessary therefore to go into other matters. By the death of A general attorney of a litigant the suit does not abate. The law of abatement applies to parties and not to their agents. The order of the learned Judge was, therefore without jurisdiction, illegal and absolutely improper.

I, therefore, sot it aside under my general powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of this it is not necessary to go into other matters.

3. I, therefore, allow this petition, setaside the order of the 5th January, 1948, anddirect that the proceedings be restored at theirproper number and be proceeded with fromthe stage at which the order of abatement waspassed, by the learned Judge. The rule is,therefore, made absolute. There, will be noorder as to costs in this Court or in the Courtsbelow. The parties are directed to appear inthe trial Court on the 26th November, 1951.


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