Skip to content


(Vaddiraju) Venkata Jagga Rao Vs. Pitta Ranganayakulu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad48
Appellant(Vaddiraju) Venkata Jagga Rao
RespondentPitta Ranganayakulu
Excerpt:
- - 55, given to the agent to the governor, can only be exercised if he is satisfied that the order of the lower court is not according to law. if the agent to the governor was satisfied that this discretion had not been properly exercised by the first court he would be justified in acting under rule 55. in the present case, on the merits, his order is certainly rights for i am of opinion that the special assistant agent omitted to take into consideration many circumstances which might probably have induced him to reconsider his order......and is not subject to alteration by the appellate court. if the agent to the governor was satisfied that this discretion had not been properly exercised by the first court he would be justified in acting under rule 55. in the present case, on the merits, his order is certainly rights for i am of opinion that the special assistant agent omitted to take into consideration many circumstances which might probably have induced him to reconsider his order. if, therefore, the. governor's agent thought that the assistant agent had not exercised his discretion judicially, as he evidently did, he was justified in taking action under rule 55. the petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to revise an order passed by the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam setting aside the dismissal of a suit for default and ordering its restoration to file. It is here contended that the power under Agency E. 55, given to the Agent to the Governor, can only be exercised if he is satisfied that the order of the lower Court is not according to law. It is significant that the Agency rules do not provide for any appeal against an order refusing to set aside a dismissal. Therefore the exercise of discretion by the first Court becomes final and is not subject to alteration by the appellate Court. If the Agent to the Governor was satisfied that this discretion had not been properly exercised by the first Court he would be justified in acting under Rule 55. In the present case, on the merits, his order is certainly rights for I am of opinion that the Special Assistant Agent omitted to take into consideration many circumstances which might probably have induced him to reconsider his order. If, therefore, the. Governor's Agent thought that the Assistant Agent had not exercised his discretion judicially, as he evidently did, he was justified in taking action under Rule 55. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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