Skip to content


Mutturi Suryanarayanamurty Vs. Karumuri Nagachandramowli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1936Mad842; 165Ind.Cas.741; (1936)71MLJ497
AppellantMutturi Suryanarayanamurty
RespondentKarumuri Nagachandramowli
Cases ReferredKotta Nagarattamma v. Immadi Nagayya
Excerpt:
- - , did not remember whether he had considered the merits of the appeal or not it must be presumed that he acted in conformity with the provisions of order 44, rule 1, civil procedure code and issued notice only after he was satisfied that there was some reason to think that the decree was contrary to law, etc. clearly an appeal should not be admitted until the judge is satisfied that the decree of the court appealed against is contrary* to law or is otherwise erroneous or unjust......whether a that stage the judge could hear the respondent's pleader on this point. the district judge held that his previous order issuing notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted in forma pauperis before he had considered the question as to whether there was any substance in the appeal was a wrong one. he therefore rescinded it and heard the pleaders on the question as to whether there was substance in the appeal. having found that there was not he rejected the application. hence this revision petition.2. the question is whether this procedure of the district judge was justifiable and legal. my attention has been drawn to a case reported in kotta nagarattamma v. immadi nagayya (1932) 65 m.l.j. 362 but in that case one judge had already issued a.....
Judgment:

Horwill, J.

1. The District Judge of Kistna received an application from the petitioner to appeal in forma pauperis. Without considering whether or not there was any substance in the appeal he issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the petitioner should not be permitted to appeal in forma pauperis. The respondent appeared through a pleader and contended that there was no substance in the appeal and that it should, therefore, be dismissed, whether in fact the petitioner was a pauper or not. Apparently the question was then raised whether a that stage the Judge could hear the respondent's pleader on this point. The District Judge held that his previous Order issuing notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted in forma pauperis before he had considered the question as to whether there was any substance in the appeal was a wrong one. He therefore rescinded it and heard the pleaders on the question as to whether there was substance in the appeal. Having found that there was not he rejected the application. Hence this Revision Petition.

2. The question is whether this procedure of the District Judge was justifiable and legal. My attention has been drawn to a case reported in Kotta Nagarattamma v. Immadi Nagayya (1932) 65 M.L.J. 362 but in that case one judge had already issued a notice under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, to the respondent and there was no reason to believe that he had not considered whether the decree of the lower Court was contrary to law, etc. His successor heard the parties or pleaders and found that the appeal was one that ought not to be admitted. He therefore rejected it. It was held in revision by the High Court that the action of the second Judge was wrong, and that it must be presumed that the first Judge had already considered the question and it was not open to his successor to reconsider the matter. In an unreported case, L.P.A. No. 20 of 1934, Ramesam, J., held after hearing both sides that there was no substance in the appeal, adding that he did not remember whether he considered the merits of the appeal or not when the petition to appeal was first presented. In the Letters Patent appeal it was held by the Chief Justice and King, J., that as Ramesam, J., did not remember whether he had considered the merits of the appeal or not it must be presumed that he acted in conformity with the provisions of Order 44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and issued notice only after he was satisfied that there was some reason to think that the decree was contrary to law, etc. The present matter under appeal is not as simple. Here it is known definitely that the District Judge did not consider the question raised by Order 44, Rule 1 and thgt when he realised he had issued a notice to show cause why the petitioner should not be allowed to appeal, he rescinded it. I do not see that the District Judge acted wrongly in so doing. Clearly an appeal should not be admitted until the Judge is satisfied that the decree of the Court appealed against is contrary* to law or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. He was, therefore, justified in correcting his error.

3. It is further argued that the pleader for the respondent had no locus standi and should not have been heard. I quite agree that the pleader for the respondent had no right to be heard; but it does not follow that the Judge was wrong in hearing him. Presumably a Judge is always justified in hearing the other side in Order that he may give an Order which is not erroneous or unjust.

4. I, therefore, consider that the action of the District Judge was right and accordingly dismiss this petition with costs.


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