Skip to content


Sri Mirza Pasupati Viziarama Jagapathi Rajamaharaju Maya Sultan Bahadur Varu, Maharajau of Vizianagaram Through G. Appiah Muktar Vs. Meduri Suryanarayana and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.32
AppellantSri Mirza Pasupati Viziarama Jagapathi Rajamaharaju Maya Sultan Bahadur Varu, Maharajau of Vizianaga
RespondentMeduri Suryanarayana and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act 7 of 1903), section 115 - suit on pro-note--failure of consideration--discrepancies between the terms of the pro-notes and their description in the plaint--dismissal of suit on the ground of discrepancies--material irregularity--failure to exercise jurisdiction--revision. - .....pro-notes themselves as circumstances in dealing with the question whether the pro-notes were given and executed for consideration. but he has dismissed the plaintiff's suit simply on the ground of such discrepancies. it is urged by mr. ramesam that even if the judge is wrong in the way he has disposed of the appeal, the error is not one relating to jurisdiction. but i cannot accept his contention. to my mind the method adopted by the subordinate judge in dealing with the case amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and at least is a very material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction within the meaning of section 115 of the code of civil procedure. the subordinate judge was not competent to reverse the judgment of the munsif without coming to a conclusion on the.....
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. I think the Subordinate Court's judgment in appeal ought to be set aside. He has not disposed of the case on the evidence and does not say that he disagrees with the findings of the Munsif on the issues raised in the case. He would have been quite within his rights if he has considered whatever discrepancies there were between the descriptions of the pro-notes in the plaint and the terms of the pro-notes themselves as circumstances in dealing with the question whether the pro-notes were given and executed for consideration. But he has dismissed the plaintiff's suit simply on the ground of such discrepancies. It is urged by Mr. Ramesam that even if the Judge is wrong in the way he has disposed of the appeal, the error is not one relating to jurisdiction. But I cannot accept his contention. To my mind the method adopted by the Subordinate Judge in dealing with the case amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and at least is a very material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge was not competent to reverse the judgment of the Munsif without coming to a conclusion on the questions raised by the issues and decided by the Munsif in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and he must be asked to dispose of the appeal according to law. Costs will abide the result.


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