Skip to content


Cheriamakantagath Mammad Vs. Uthama Chund Rama Chund Sett - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1894)4MLJ87
AppellantCheriamakantagath Mammad
RespondentUthama Chund Rama Chund Sett
Cases ReferredBirj Mohun Thakoor v. Rai Uma Nath Chowdhry L.
Excerpt:
- - best, j. 3. the present case is one in which the district munsif clearly had jurisdiction and the mere fact of his decision being erroneous is not sufficient to justify its revision under section 622 as held in l......to exercise a jurisdiction which he had, and exercised one which did not belong to him;' the former, in not confirming under section 312, a sale for the setting aside of which no application had been made under section 311; and the latter, in setting aside the sale under section 313 on the application of a persons not entitled to make such application under that section.3. the present case is one in which the district munsif clearly had jurisdiction and the mere fact of his decision being erroneous is not sufficient to justify its revision under section 622 as held in l. r 11 i.a 2374. this petition is therefore dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Best, J.

1. The preliminary objection is taken that this is not a case in which revision is allowed by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in support of this objection reference is made to the case reported in L. R 11 I. A 237 Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh.

2. On the other hand I have been referred on behalf of the petitioner to Birj Mohun Thakoor v. Rai Uma Nath Chowdhry L. R 19 I. A 154 In this latter case, however, it was expressly found that the Subordinate judge had 'declined to exercise a jurisdiction which he had, and exercised one which did not belong to him;' the former, in not confirming under Section 312, a sale for the setting aside of which no application had been made under Section 311; and the latter, in setting aside the sale under Section 313 on the application of a persons not entitled to make such application under that section.

3. The present case is one in which the District Munsif clearly had jurisdiction and the mere fact of his decision being erroneous is not sufficient to justify its revision under Section 622 as held in L. R 11 I.A 237

4. This petition is therefore dismissed with costs.


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