Skip to content


S. Rajam Ayyar Vs. Pavanambal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1949)1MLJ419
AppellantS. Rajam Ayyar
RespondentPavanambal
Cases ReferredKirshna Nair v. Valliammal
Excerpt:
- - the point has already been clearly decided by two single judges of this court who were in agreement......order passed by a subordinate judge appointed under section 12(1) of madras act xv of 1946 as the appellate authority for purposes of the act. in the present case the subordinate judge of cuddalore reversed, in an appeal to him, an order passed by the house rent controller and directed the eviction of the petitioner. the point has already been clearly decided by two single judges of this court who were in agreement. yahya ali, j., in abdul wahid sahib v. abdul khader sahib : air1947mad400 , held that district and subordinate judges appointed under section 12 by notification were not courts and that such a district or subordinate judge was a persona designata, not being a court subordinate to the high court. taking this view, yahya ali, j., dismissed an application under section 24 of.....
Judgment:

Mack, J.

1. The simple point which arises in this petition is whether a revision. lies to the Court against an order passed by a Subordinate Judge appointed under Section 12(1) of Madras Act XV of 1946 as the appellate authority for purposes of the Act. In the present case the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore reversed, in an appeal to him, an order passed by the House Rent Controller and directed the eviction of the petitioner. The point has already been clearly decided by two single Judges of this Court who were in agreement. Yahya Ali, J., in Abdul Wahid Sahib v. Abdul Khader Sahib : AIR1947Mad400 , held that District and Subordinate Judges appointed under Section 12 by notification were not Courts and that such a District or Subordinate Judge was a persona designata, not being a Court subordinate to the High Court. Taking this view, Yahya Ali, J., dismissed an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of an appeal before the District Judge of Bellary to the file of another Court. Clark, J., in Chinniah Thevar v. F. M. Badsha : (1948)1MLJ314 , agreeing with the view taken by Yahya Ali, J., held that no revision could be entertained by the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order passed on appeal by such an appellate authority. A recent decision by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in Kirshna Nair v. Valliammal : (1949)1MLJ74 , has been placed before me in which, it is urged, a different view has been taken. In that case the facts were a little different, as the appellate authority originally notified was the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court and this was subsequently changed to the ' Court of Small Causes ' in order to enable other Judges of the Small Cause Court also to deal with such appeals. In those circumstances the view taken was that the second Judge of the Small Cause Court did not act as a persona designata, but as a Judge of the Small Cause Court and as a part of the Small Cause Court which was subordinate to the High Court. The distinction appears to me to be rather fine. None of these decisions have considered the scope of Section 12(4) which specifically seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision. This clause reads as. follows:

The decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of Law whether in a suit or other proceeding or by way of appeal or revision.

If the Subordinate Judge as the notified appellate authority is persdna designata and not a Court, there can be no doubt that Section 12(4) is intra vires and rules out any remedy by suit or by way of appeal or revision. I have no hesitation in the present case in holding, in agreement with Yahya Ali, J., and Clark, J., that the Subordinate Judge was appointed persona designata as the appellate authority and that he was not a Court subordinate to the High Court, a condition necessary for the revisional powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to be invoked. This revision petition is not maintainable. Even if it was, having heard both sides, I can see no ground for any interference in revision. The petition is dismissed with costs.

2. The learned advocate for the respondent agrees to give two months' time for the petitioner to vacate the premises where a longstanding grocery business has been conducted. This will be made an order of Court, by consent.


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