Skip to content


Ramachandram Pillai Vs. Neelambal Achi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Mad88; 70Ind.Cas.5
AppellantRamachandram Pillai
RespondentNeelambal Achi
Cases ReferredSultanat Jahan Begam v. Sunday
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), sections 10, 115 - question in issue in two suits same--refusal to stay second suit--revision. - .....liability under the mortgage if the alienation is valid. the subordinate judge's order refusing to stay proceedings therefore, involves a question of jurisdiction, for he has assumed jurisdiction which is denied to him by section 10 of the code of civil procedure; it is argued for respondent that this court has no power to interfere in revision with orders under section 10 of the code of civil procedure, and reliance is placed on sultanat jahan begam v. sunday 42 a. 409. in that case, however, the order sought to. be revised was an order of stay and not a refusal to stay and thus the court has not assumed jurisdiction which it did not possess. if the decision is meant to apply to all orders under section 10, civil procedure code, i must, with all respect, dissent, for this high court has.....
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. The same question is in issue in both the suits, i.e., the validity of the alienation by respondent to petitioner, and the disposal of the issue in the first suit will practically dispose of the second suit, for petitioner does not dispute his liability under the mortgage if the alienation is valid. The Subordinate Judge's order refusing to stay proceedings therefore, involves a question of jurisdiction, for he has assumed jurisdiction which is denied to him by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure; It is argued for respondent that this Court has no power to interfere in revision with orders under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and reliance is placed on Sultanat Jahan Begam v. Sunday 42 A. 409. In that case, however, the order sought to. be revised was an order of stay and not a refusal to stay and thus the Court has not assumed jurisdiction which it did not possess. If the decision is meant to apply to all orders under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, I must, with all respect, dissent, for this High Court has consistently allowed revision in cases of mere interlocutory orders, and I see no reason to refuse jurisdiction in this case. The Subordinate Judge's order is, therefore, set aside and proceedings stayed in Original Suit No. 19 of 1920. Respondent will pay petitioner's costs of this petition.


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