Skip to content


Ramanna and anr. Vs. Sitamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1900)10MLJ238
AppellantRamanna and anr.
RespondentSitamma and ors.
Cases Referred(Sakharam v. Gangaram
Excerpt:
- - the effect of this irregular procedure has been that, while the high court decided one issue as a court of first appeal and was able to interfere on points of fact as well as of law, it is now called on to' decide the remaining issue in second appeal......appeal to the high court this finding was set aside, and the case was sent back for trial by the district judge. the district judge referred certain matters to a commissioner who sent a report. after the receipt of this report, the district judge transferred the case to the subordinate judge for disposal. the subordinate judge tried the case and a first appeal having been preferred to the district judge, the suit now comes before the high court on second appeal. we must hold that these proceedings have been throughout most irregular. under section 25 of the civil procedure code, the district judge was not entitled to transfer the suit to the subordinate judge even before the trial had commenced (sakharam v. gangaram,) i.l.r. (1889) b 654 and it was of course a most objectionable course.....
Judgment:

1. The District Judge received a mass of evidence, oral and documentary, and dismissed the case as barred by limitation. On first appeal to the High Court this finding was set aside, and the case was sent back for trial by the District Judge. The District Judge referred certain matters to a Commissioner who sent a report. After the receipt of this report, the District Judge transferred the case to the Subordinate Judge for disposal. The Subordinate Judge tried the case and a first appeal having been preferred to the District Judge, the suit now comes before the High Court on second appeal. We must hold that these proceedings have been throughout most irregular. Under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, the District Judge was not entitled to transfer the suit to the Subordinate Judge even before the trial had commenced (Sakharam v. Gangaram,) I.L.R. (1889) B 654 and it was of course a most objectionable course to pursue to decide one issue as a court of first instance, and when the finding on that issue had been set aside by the High Court, to send the case for trial to the Subordinate Judge and hear the remaining issues as a Court of appeal. The effect of this irregular procedure has been that, while the High Court decided one issue as a Court of first appeal and was able to interfere on points of fact as well as of law, it is now called on to' decide the remaining issue in second appeal. We must hold that every thing that has been done in connection with the trial of this suit from the time that the report of the Commissioner was' submitted to the District ' Judge is null and void as having been done without jurisdiction, and we must consequently set aside the order of the District Judge transferring the case to the Subordinate Judge and all subsequent proceedings, and direct the District Judge to restore the case (O.S. No. 6 of 1894) to his file in the state in which it stood at the date of the transfer to the Subordinate Judge and proceed to try it on the merits. All costs incurred subsequent to the order of remand by the High Court will abide and follow the result.


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