Skip to content


Chinnasami Pillai Vs. Pavayee Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1162
AppellantChinnasami Pillai
RespondentPavayee Ammal and ors.
Cases ReferredAcha v. Sankaran A. I. R.
Excerpt:
- waller, j.1. a preliminary objection is taken that the high court should not interfere under section 115, civil p. c., in a case of this kind. that was the view taken by phillips, j., in acha v. sankaran a. i. r. 1926 mad. 768 no doubt, other judges of this court have taken a different view, but, with all respect, i prefer to follow phillips, j. petitioner has other remedies open to him and it is, i think, no answer to say that the appropriate remedy is more cumbrous than that he seeks to obtain by way of revision.2. assuming that i can interfere in such a matter in revision, i am unable to see how any question of jurisdiction arises.3. the lower court may be wrong, but it had jurisdiction to pass the order it did. the petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Waller, J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken that the High Court should not interfere under Section 115, Civil P. C., in a case of this kind. That was the view taken by Phillips, J., in Acha v. Sankaran A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 768 No doubt, other Judges of this Court have taken a different view, but, with all respect, I prefer to follow Phillips, J. Petitioner has other remedies open to him and it is, I think, no answer to say that the appropriate remedy is more cumbrous than that he seeks to obtain by way of revision.

2. Assuming that I can interfere in such a matter in revision, I am unable to see how any question of jurisdiction arises.

3. The lower Court may be wrong, but it had jurisdiction to pass the order it did. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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