Skip to content


(John Joseph) Brito Vs. Mrs. S.S. Brito - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad586
Appellant(John Joseph) Brito
RespondentMrs. S.S. Brito
Cases ReferredNarayanasami v. Natesa
Excerpt:
- 1. this is a petition under section 115, code of civil procedure, whether or not the subordinate judge was acting quite regularly in entertaining this petition. under section 151, we find there is the authority of this court for considering that he might have reviewed his decree in the suit, under order 47, code of civil procedure see alamelu ammal v. rama aiyar 1922 mad. 446, and if he had acted in the exercise of his power under that chapter of the code, he might have passed a similar order to that, now sought to be revised. as the judge made a regular enquiry, before passing his order setting aside previous order dismissing the suit, and as he found as the result of that enquiry that the defendant fraudulently and through undue influence caused the plaintiff to sign the compromise.....
Judgment:

1. This is a petition under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, whether or not the Subordinate Judge was acting quite regularly in entertaining this petition. Under Section 151, we find there is the authority of this Court for considering that he might have reviewed his decree in the suit, under Order 47, Code of Civil Procedure see Alamelu Ammal v. Rama Aiyar 1922 Mad. 446, and if he had acted in the exercise of his power under that Chapter of the Code, he might have passed a similar order to that, now sought to be revised. As the Judge made a regular enquiry, before passing his order setting aside previous order dismissing the suit, and as he found as the result of that enquiry that the defendant fraudulently and through undue influence caused the plaintiff to sign the compromise petition and to present it in Court, and seeing that the merits of the whole case will be thoroughly enquired into at the trial of the suit, there are no good reasons for our exercising our revisional powers in favour of the petitioner, when the order is substantially just: see Narayanasami v. Natesa (1893) 16 Mad. 424.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.


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