Skip to content


Partap Krishna Vs. Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberF.A.F.O. No. 101 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1953P& H226
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 10 and 151; Displaced Persons' Debt Adjustment Act, 1951 - Sections 3 and 18; Debt Law
AppellantPartap Krishna
RespondentSterling General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Appellant Advocate P.L. Bahl, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.L. Puri, Adv.
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........an order passed by mr. jagdish narain kapur acting as a tribunal under the displaced persons' debt adjustment act of 1951, but i cannot see how this order the effect of which is the stay of proceedings pending before him, can be appealed against. i would therefore treat it only as an application under article 227.2. the petitioner brought a suit for recovery of rs. 50,000/- against the sterling general insurance company on the basis of an insurance policy. he has also made an application under section 18, displaced persons' debt adjustment act and has claimed the same amount. the learned judge has stayed the proceedings under section 151, civil p. c., but the approach, in my opinion, seems to be erroneous. section 3, displaced persons' debt adjustment act of 1951 overrides the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kapur, J.

1. This is an appeal brought against an order passed by Mr. Jagdish Narain Kapur acting as a Tribunal under the Displaced Persons' Debt Adjustment Act of 1951, but I cannot see how this order the effect of which is the stay of proceedings pending before him, can be appealed against. I would therefore treat it only as an application under Article 227.

2. The petitioner brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- against the Sterling General Insurance Company on the basis of an insurance policy. He has also made an application under Section 18, Displaced Persons' Debt Adjustment Act and has claimed the same amount. The learned Judge has stayed the proceedings under Section 151, Civil P. C., but the approach, in my opinion, seems to be erroneous. Section 3, Displaced Persons' Debt Adjustment Act of 1951 overrides the provisions of all other laws and takes effect in preference to all other laws, or rules or orders and it also overrides any decree or order of a Court.

3. Besides, the stay of suits is governed by Section 10, Civil P. C. There is a previously instituted suit no doubt but the present proceedings cannot be called a suit, and therefore it cannot be stayed under Section 10, Civil P. C., but as according to Section 3, Displaced Persons' Debt Adjustment Act any order passed in such proceedings is to take precedence over the decree or order of a Court, I am of opinion that these proceedings should go on and the previously instituted suit in the Court of one of the Subordinate Judges at Delhi which has been brought by the present appellant (Applicant) against the present respondent, shall remain stayed and to this order Mr. Panna Lal Bahl for the appellant (Applicant) agrees. In the result the present appeal is treated as a petition under Article 227 and is allowed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.


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