Skip to content


M.S. Dandayudapani Iyer, Pleader, Kallakurichi Vs. the District Munsif (Mr. K. Balaji Rao) of Kallakurichi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in78Ind.Cas.6
AppellantM.S. Dandayudapani Iyer, Pleader, Kallakurichi
RespondentThe District Munsif (Mr. K. Balaji Rao) of Kallakurichi
Excerpt:
government of india act (5 and 6, geo. v, c. 61) section 107 - application by stranger to expunge passages in judgment of lower court--jurisdiction of high court. - - 205 and 206 of 1914; also neither of the learned judges in fact expressed any opinion in favour of the use of the power unless in most exceptional cases......before us, and damaging to him. i have already expresssed my views on the jurisdiction of this court to make such an order in in re krishnaswami aiyangar 47 ind. cas. 981 : 85 m.l.j. 868, and i have been shown and now see no reason for changing them. very little further in the way of authority has now been referred to. in fact, we have been shown no instance in which this power has been exercised by this or any other court not mentioned in the case just referred to. i observe that civil revision petition no. 1396 of 1916 is not an instance of the exercise of this power and was referred to as such only owing to the unfortunate misdescription of the case in the judicial index of this court in civil revision petition no. 888 of 1916 and a.a.o. nos. 205 and 206 of 1914; also neither of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We are asked in these petitions to direct that a paragraph be expunged from the order of the District Munsif of Kalla-kurichi on the ground that it contains language misrepresenting the conduct of a Vakil, petitioner before us, and damaging to him. I have already expresssed my views on the jurisdiction of this Court to make such an order in In re Krishnaswami Aiyangar 47 Ind. Cas. 981 : 85 M.L.J. 868, and I have been shown and now see no reason for changing them. Very little further in the way of authority has now been referred to. In fact, we have been shown no instance in which this power has been exercised by this or any other Court not mentioned in the case just referred to. I observe that Civil Revision Petition No. 1396 of 1916 is not an instance of the exercise of this power and was referred to as such only owing to the unfortunate misdescription of the case in the judicial index of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 888 of 1916 and A.A.O. Nos. 205 and 206 of 1914; also neither of the learned Judges in fact expressed any opinion in favour of the use of the power unless in most exceptional cases. With these observations I again reach the same conclusion as in my previous decision and, for the same reasons. I would therefore dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 848 of 1922 and Civil Revision Petition No. 193 of 1922.

Devadoss, J.

2. I agree.


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