Skip to content


In Re: V. Tirupuliswamy Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.R. No. 21880 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Mad287
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantIn Re: V. Tirupuliswamy Naidu
Advocates:M.K. Nambiar and ;L.S. Veeraraghava Aiyar, Advs.
DispositionAppeal rejected
Excerpt:
- - , or under article 227 of the constitution in our opinion, is the revisional jurisdiction and not the extraordinary original jurisdiction like the jurisdiction of this court underarticle 238 of the constitution......the appeal lies against the order ofthe learned chief justice in c. b. p. no. 473 of1954. the civil revision petition was filed bothunder section 115 of the civil procedure codeand also under art. 227 of the constitution. inthe revision petition, the learned chief justicedisposed of the matter on merits and agreed withthe learned district. judge that the respondentceased to hold office because of the superveningdisqualification that he had become a leper. inthat view the learned chief justice thought itunnecessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent that thecivil revision petition was itself. incompetent,because the district judge acting under section 51 ofthe district municipalities act was only a 'persona designata' and not a court. the.....
Judgment:

Satyanarayana Rao, J.

This matter was placed before us for orders asto whether the appeal lies against the order ofthe learned Chief Justice in C. B. P. No. 473 of1954. The civil revision petition was filed bothunder Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Codeand also under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Inthe revision petition, the learned Chief Justicedisposed of the matter on merits and agreed withthe learned District. Judge that the respondentceased to hold office because of the superveningdisqualification that he had become a leper. Inthat view the learned Chief Justice thought itunnecessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent that thecivil revision petition was Itself. Incompetent,because the District Judge acting under Section 51 ofthe District Municipalities Act was only a 'persona designata' and not a court. The Jurisdictionthat was Invoked whether it rightly falls underSection 115, Civil P. C., or under Article 227 of the Constitution in our opinion, is the revisional jurisdiction and not the extraordinary original jurisdiction like the jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 238 of the Constitution. Under the LettersPatent an appeal lies against the decision of asingle Judge of this Court only if it is a judgment which was not rendered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Letters Patent wasamended in 1927, In our opinion the jurisdictionunder Article 227 of the Constitution is revisionaljurisdiction and the appeal is therefore incometent. The S. R. is rejected.


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