Skip to content


A.T. Pannirselvam Vs. A. Veeriah Vendayar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Mad376
AppellantA.T. Pannirselvam
RespondentA. Veeriah Vendayar
Excerpt:
- - but i am sure that the learned subordinate judge would afford full opportunity to either party, for establishing his contention on this issue, and if any party should desire that any documentary or other evidence has to be taken, before deciding this question, the subordinate judge would do .well to give facilities for this purpose, for the sake of completeness, and to prevent a remand, on the ground that material evidence was shut out......to be followed. the subordinate judge has, in the exercise of his discretion under the aforesaid rule, advanced the hearing to 16th april 1930, for the consideration of one point, which he says is a pure question of law. i hold that he has jurisdiction to advance the hearing date.2. it is strenuously contended that much is the hardship or inconvenience caused to the petitioner by this advancement of the hearing. i do not think fit to interfere in revision when there is no illegal exercise of jurisdiction. but i am sure that the learned subordinate judge would afford full opportunity to either party, for establishing his contention on this issue, and if any party should desire that any documentary or other evidence has to be taken, before deciding this question, the subordinate judge.....
Judgment:

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. In this case, it cannot be said that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to advance the hearing of the case, without the consent of both parties. The Civil Procedure Code is silent on] this point, but Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice provides for the advancement of the hearing and the procedure to be followed. The Subordinate Judge has, in the exercise of his discretion under the aforesaid rule, advanced the hearing to 16th April 1930, for the consideration of one point, which he says is a pure question of law. I hold that he has jurisdiction to advance the hearing date.

2. It is strenuously contended that much is the hardship or inconvenience caused to the petitioner by this advancement of the hearing. I do not think fit to interfere in revision when there is no illegal exercise of jurisdiction. But I am sure that the learned Subordinate Judge would afford full opportunity to either party, for establishing his contention on this issue, and if any party should desire that any documentary or other evidence has to be taken, before deciding this question, the Subordinate Judge would do .well to give facilities for this purpose, for the sake of completeness, and to prevent a remand, on the ground that material evidence was shut out. With these observations, I dismiss this petition.


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