Skip to content


Kalyanji Patel Vs. Motilal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 116/1979
Judge
Reported in1979WLN(UC)187
AppellantKalyanji Patel
RespondentMotilal
Cases ReferredRanchhodmal v. Nawratanmal and Ors.
Excerpt:
.....code--section 115--revision--munsif provisionally determines amount of rent & interest--held, appeal lies against it--revision is not maintainable;the learned munsif city, provisionally determined the amount of rent and interest under section 13(3);as the order under revision is appealable, under section 22(1) of the act. the revision filed by the defendant-petitioner cannot be entertained;revision dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986..........and directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff or deposit it in court within 15 days in s.b. civil revision no. 96 of 1979, ranchhodmal v. nawratanmal and ors., decided by me to day, i have held that an appeal lies against the order determining the amount of rent and interest under section 13.(3) of the act and the direction made under section 13 (4) of the act with regard to its deposit or payment. under section 22 (1) of the act, an appeal lies against the order of the munsif dated march 19, 1979 to which the appeals ordinarily lie from original orders passed by him. in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the high court can call for the record of any case, which has been decided by any court subordinate to such high court and in which no appeal lies thereto. sub-section (2).....
Judgment:

S.K. Mal Lodha, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Munsif City, dated 19-3 79, by which he provisionally determined the amount of rent and interest under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act,) and directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff or deposit it in court within 15 days In S.B. Civil Revision No. 96 of 1979, Ranchhodmal v. Nawratanmal and Ors., decided by me to day, I have held that an appeal lies against the order determining the amount of rent and interest under Section 13.(3) of the Act and the direction made under Section 13 (4) of the Act with regard to its deposit or payment. Under Section 22 (1) of the Act, an appeal lies against the order of the Munsif dated March 19, 1979 to which the appeals ordinarily lie from original orders passed by him. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the High Court can call for the record of any case, which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto. Sub-section (2) of Section 115, which was inserted by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976 provides that the High Court shall not under Section 115, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. As the order under revision is appealable, under Section 22 (1) of the Act. the revision filed by the defendant- petitioner cannot be entertained Thus, the present revision is not maintainable.

2. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to examine order under revision on merits.

3. As no revision lies against the order of the Munsif dated March 19, 1979, it is, accordingly, rejected.


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