Skip to content


P. Subbamma Vs. Ch. Venkata Reddy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad260(1); (1942)2MLJ356
AppellantP. Subbamma
RespondentCh. Venkata Reddy
Cases ReferredKhizar Muhammad v. Abdul Razack Sahib C.M.P. No.
Excerpt:
- .....sahib c.m.p. no. 6550 of 1941 (1941) 2 m.l.j. (n.r.c.) 88. in that case the restoration of a civil revision petition under section 115 of the civil procedure 'code was sought under section 107 read with order 9, rule 9 of the civil procedure code. it was held that neither of these provisions applied and the application was dismissed. the petitioner's learned advocate contends that inasmuch as the revision petition now in question is one filed under section 25 of the provincial small cause courts act there is a distinction to be drawn, but i can see no difference in principle between a revision petition under section. 115 of the civil procedure code and one under section 25 of the provincial small cause courts act so far as the question of maintainability is concerned. in the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Byers, J.

1. This petition seeks the restoration of C.R.P. No. 968 of 1941, which was dismissed on 20th March, 1942, for default of appearance. The facts, which are very much in the petitioner's favour, were that the time of sitting was altered from ' 2 p.m. to 12 noon at somewhat short notice and there was consequently some confusion. Although the petitioner's application is not without merit the respondent's learned advocate contends that the petition is not maintainable and he relies on the decision of Burn, J., in the case of Khizar Muhammad v. Abdul Razack Sahib C.M.P. No. 6550 of 1941 (1941) 2 M.L.J. (N.R.C.) 88. In that case the restoration of a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure 'Code was sought under Section 107 read with Order 9, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that neither of these provisions applied and the application was dismissed. The petitioner's learned advocate contends that inasmuch as the revision petition now in question is one filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act there is a distinction to be drawn, but I can see no difference in principle between a revision petition under section. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and one under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act so far as the question of maintainability is concerned. In the result, the petition is ordered to be dismissed but without any order as to costs as the respondent's learned advocate is prepared to forego them.


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