Skip to content


Chakrapani Vs. Varahalamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad227
AppellantChakrapani
RespondentVarahalamma
Excerpt:
scheduled districts act - act xiv of 1874--gurdian and wards act--act viii of 1890, section 1, clause (2)--scheduled district--agency rules. - .....to set aside an ex parte order as to which no appeal is provided in the act. section 48 of the act allows us to interfere under section 622 of the code of civil procedure and we observe that, in the present case, the order in question was passed without hearing the petitioner's vakil. the vakil should have been heard before disposing of the petition.3. we set aside the order and remand the case for disposal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner's vakil.4. the costs hitherto incurred will abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that the Guardian and Wards Act is not applicable to the scheduled districts in the absence of a notification under Section 5 of Act XIV of 1874. We find, however, that the Act VIII of 1890 extends to the whole of British India (see Section 1, Clause 2). Therefore no notification under Act XIV of 1874 is necessary.

2. It is urged, on the other hand, on behalf of counter-petitioner, that, under Act VIII of 1890, Section 47, the appeal lies directly to this Court, and that, therefore, the petition was wrongly presented to Government in the first instance; but we observe that the order appealed from is not that of a 'District Court' but of the Governor's Agent, and therefore we derive our jurisdiction not directly from Act 'VIII of 1890, but by the reference made by Government under Rule XXXI of the Agency Rules passed under Act XXIV of 1839. We are also not prepared to attach weight to the objection that it was not competent to Government to refer to us a petition such as the present, which is an application to set aside an ex parte order as to which no appeal is provided in the Act. Section 48 of the Act allows us to interfere under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we observe that, in the present case, the order in question was passed without hearing the petitioner's vakil. The vakil should have been heard before disposing of the petition.

3. We set aside the order and remand the case for disposal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner's vakil.

4. The costs hitherto incurred will abide and follow the result.


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