Skip to content


Lakshminarayana Panigrahi Vs. Pasupureddi Gopi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in25Ind.Cas.282; (1914)27MLJ177
AppellantLakshminarayana Panigrahi
RespondentPasupureddi Gopi
Excerpt:
vizagapatam agency rules, rules 17 and 20 - agent refusing to admit special appeal, whether decree. - .....review his order refusing to admit an appeal. presented to him against an appellate judgment of a special assistant agent reversing the judgment of the agency district munsif of gunupur. the appeal against the munsif's judgment was preferred under rule no. 16. rule no. 17 provided that the appellate decision of divisional assistants shall be final provided that the agent shall be at liberty, for special reasons to be recorded, to admit a special appeal in his court within the time prescribed for the admission of a regular appeal. rule no. 20 gives this court the power to direct the agent to review his judgment in the case of decrees passed by him in appeals from the decrees of the subordinates. we do not think that the agent's order in this case can be regarded as a decree. mr. ramesam.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a petition under Rule No. 20 of the Vizagapatam, Agency Rules asking us to direct the Agent to review his order refusing to admit an appeal. presented to him against an appellate judgment of a Special Assistant Agent reversing the judgment of the Agency District Munsif of Gunupur. The appeal against the Munsif's judgment was preferred under Rule No. 16. Rule No. 17 provided that the appellate decision of Divisional Assistants shall be final provided that the Agent shall be at liberty, for special reasons to be recorded, to admit a special appeal in his Court within the time prescribed for the admission of a regular appeal. Rule No. 20 gives this Court the power to direct the Agent to review his judgment in the case of decrees passed by him in appeals from the decrees of the subordinates. We do not think that the Agent's order in this case can be regarded as a decree. Mr. Ramesam contends that the Agent's order was one disposing of an appeal against the appellate decree of the Divisional Assistant and that it is, therefore, a decree, but Rule No. 17 expressly provides that the decision of a Divisional Assistant in an appeal shall be final. Rule No. 17 cannot, therefore, be read as giving a right of appeal against such a decision. The Rule, no doubt, empowers the Agent for special reasons to admit a special appeal. The meaning of this must, in our opinion, be taken to be that, if the Agent thinks fit, the party should have a right of appeal. In other words a second appeal will lie with the Agent's leave. This is the only way of reading the latter part of Rule No. 17 consistently with the former part making the appellate decisions of Divisional Assistant Agents final. Rule No. 17 cannot be regarded as conferring on the party concerned a limited right of appeal. He has no right of appeal at all, except with the leave of the Agent. The Agent's order, therefore, was one refusing leave to appeal as there were no special grounds for giving it. Such an order cannot be held to be a decree. Rule No. 20 is, therefore, inapplicable. We dismiss the petition with costs.


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