Skip to content


Chebolu Jagannadham Vs. Dalapati Chendramma and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad489
AppellantChebolu Jagannadham
RespondentDalapati Chendramma and anr.
Cases ReferredGangadhara Sah v. Swaminatha Mudali
Excerpt:
- - in doing so he cannot in any way be said to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under rule 55. he exercised his jurisdiction rightly in rejecting the petition of a person who had a right of appeal but failed to exercise it and then sought further relief......petition was filed giving totally unacceptable reasons for not having appealed and asking that the petition should be treated as an appeal or tried as a petition under rule 55. the agent quite rightly rejected both requests. in doing so he cannot in any way be said to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under rule 55. he exercised his jurisdiction rightly in rejecting the petition of a person who had a right of appeal but failed to exercise it and then sought further relief. the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:

Mackay, J.

1. This is a petition in which I am asked to revise an order made by the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam dismissing a petition under Rule 55, Agency Rules, requesting him to set aside a decree made by the Special Assistant Agent at Parvatipur. The suit was brought on a bond by the licensor of an arrack shop for the recovery of money to be paid out of the profits of the shop by persons whom he had taken in to work it. The trial Court held that there was a partnership and that the taking in of partners did not offend the conditions of the license. For that position it relied on Gangadhara Sah v. Swaminatha Mudali : AIR1926Mad218 . It was urged before me, that there was' a sale or subletting and that this is opposed to the terms of the license and illegal.

2. It is unnecessary to go into this question, as I am of opinion that no case for revision has been made out. An appeal lay to the Agent and no appeal was laid within the period limited. Long after the expiry of that period a petition was filed giving totally unacceptable reasons for not having appealed and asking that the petition should be treated as an appeal or tried as a petition under Rule 55. The agent quite rightly rejected both requests. In doing so he cannot in any way be said to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under Rule 55. He exercised his jurisdiction rightly in rejecting the petition of a person who had a right of appeal but failed to exercise it and then sought further relief. The petition is dismissed.


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