Skip to content


Doolaji Sirema Vs. Nasuvale Kulusum Bee and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad669
AppellantDoolaji Sirema
RespondentNasuvale Kulusum Bee and anr.
Cases ReferredMuniswami Goudu v. Junjadu
Excerpt:
- .....another matter whether there are adequate grounds for interference in revision. the fact that an appeal lies against the decree in the suit : vide muniswami goudu v. junjadu 1917 mad. 732, is therefore irrelevant and cannot stand in the way of the petition under order 9, rule 9 being considered and the matter carried to higher courts. i overrule the objection, on the merits, though the matter seems to be a hard case, i do not see any reason to interfere. the facts proved and found by the courts below are. (1) the plaintiff has given up his former vakil. (2) he has informally engaged another vakil but not completed the engagement, (3) neither he nor the new vakil was present in court when the case was called. the plaintiff has to thank himself for the result.2. only one observation i.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no Civil Revision Petition lies and Beni Madhi Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey 1930 All. 604 is relied on. I am not inclined to agree with that decision. Order 9, Rule 9, explicitly, permits the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the dismissed petition. Once a petition to restore lies, the party has necessarily the right to question the correctness of the order on it in appeal and on revision. It is another matter whether there are adequate grounds for interference in revision. The fact that an appeal lies against the decree in the suit : vide Muniswami Goudu v. Junjadu 1917 Mad. 732, is therefore irrelevant and cannot stand in the way of the petition under Order 9, Rule 9 being considered and the matter carried to higher Courts. I overrule the objection, On the merits, though the matter seems to be a hard case, I do not see any reason to interfere. The facts proved and found by the Courts below are. (1) The plaintiff has given up his former vakil. (2) He has informally engaged another vakil but not completed the engagement, (3) Neither he nor the new vakil was present in Court when the case was called. The plaintiff has to thank himself for the result.

2. Only one observation I wish to make. Mr. Achayya Chetty, the former vakil, who was present in Court might have offered to proceed with the case seeing that the defendants have to call witnesses to prove the payments pleaded and he has only to cross-examine them. If he had done so, his conduct would have been praiseworthy. I do not say that he is not within his rights in refusing to do so. The petition is dismissed with costs, (only one set in this Court) to be shared equally by the Respondents.


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