Skip to content


Bollapragada Garu Narayana Rao, Minor by His Mother Rama Lakshmanna Vs. Bollapragada Janaki Ramiah Garu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.1130
AppellantBollapragada Garu Narayana Rao, Minor by His Mother Rama Lakshmanna
RespondentBollapragada Janaki Ramiah Garu
Cases ReferredVide Narayanasami v. Natesa
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), sections 158, 177 and 622 - review of a wrong order--revision by high court. - miller, j.1.the district munsif had, in my opinion, jurisdiction to revise his order, and though the second order which he made purports to be under chap. vii of the civil procedure code, i ought not to interfere, under section 622, if the result has been reached and that which was irregularly done has been set right. vide narayanasami v. natesa 16 m. 424.2. it seems to me in the first instance the district munsif might perhaps have proceeded under section 158, but he did not, as a matter of fact, decide the suit on the evidence before him, but expressly and wrongly proceeded under section 177. he had jurisdiction to review this wrong order for sufficient reason. 3. the petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1.The District Munsif had, in my opinion, jurisdiction to revise his order, and though the second order which he made purports to be under Chap. VII of the Civil Procedure Code, I ought not to interfere, under Section 622, if the result has been reached and that which was irregularly done has been set right. Vide Narayanasami v. Natesa 16 M. 424.

2. It seems to me in the first instance the District Munsif might perhaps have proceeded under Section 158, but he did not, as a matter of fact, decide the suit on the evidence before him, but expressly and wrongly proceeded under Section 177. He had jurisdiction to review this wrong order for sufficient reason.

3. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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