Skip to content


O.M. Nagoor Meera Sahib Vs. Sookulal Sowcar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad871; 30Ind.Cas.488
AppellantO.M. Nagoor Meera Sahib
RespondentSookulal Sowcar
Cases Referred and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - presidency small cause court, decision of, if subject to revision by high court--jurisdiction--presidency small cause courts act (xv of 1882), sections 19a, 38--right to apply for new trial, whether in nature of appeal--order returning plaint for presentation to proper court--application for new trial not made-revision to high court, if competent. - .....cause courts act. but we follow the decisions of sadasook gambir chand v. kannayya 19 m.k 96 and srinivasa charlu v. balaji rau 21 m.k 232 and hold that the jurisdiction under section 38 is not of an appellate nature. in these circumstances we think that the learned judge had jurisdiction to pass his order.3. we have been shown no reason for dissenting from that order, or the learned judge's exercise of his discretion in passing it.4. the letters patent appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. In a recent case Venkataramanjulu Naidu v. Ramaswami Naidu 30 Ind. Cas. 353 we followed the decisions in Haladkar Maiti v. Choytonna Maiti 7 C.W.N. 547 and Ramdin Bania v. Sew Baksk Singh 6 Ind. Cas. 473 and held that the Court could exercise revisionary jurisdiction over the Presidency Small Cause Court.

2. We have been shown no reason now for taking a different view. It is argued that in the present case there could be no revision, because respondent-plaintiff had an appeal open to him under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. But we follow the decisions of Sadasook Gambir Chand v. Kannayya 19 M.k 96 and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau 21 M.k 232 and hold that the jurisdiction under Section 38 is not of an appellate nature. In these circumstances we think that the learned Judge had jurisdiction to pass his order.

3. We have been shown no reason for dissenting from that order, or the learned Judge's exercise of his discretion in passing it.

4. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.


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