Skip to content


Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Iswaram Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in107Ind.Cas.301
AppellantMeenakshi Ammal
Respondentiswaram Iyer
Cases ReferredVeeraswami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali
Excerpt:
.....115 - order allowing claim petition--failure to determine question of possession--revision--interference. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along with sub-section (12) of section 19 of..........rule is that this court will not do anything like going into the merits when an appeal is available to the party, but if the lower court whose order is impugned has entirely misconceived the question before it or committed such obvious irregularity, there is no reason why this court should not interfere. in the very short order written by the learned district munsif in this case he finds that the claimant's prima facie title is proved, and evidently he has not addressed his mind at all to the question of possession which is the question to be decided in this connection. in these circumstances the order is set aside and the petition referred to the district munsif for disposal according to law.2. costs of this petition will be costs in the proceedings.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram in C.M.P. No. 253 of 1925 allowing a claim in S.C.S. No. 505 of 1919 on the file of the Tinnevelly Sub-Court. A preliminary point has been taken that this Court cannot interfere by way of revision. I have already discussed the authorities on this question in Veeraswami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali 92 Ind. Cas. 20 : 50 M.L.J. 102 : 22 L.W. 44 (1925) M.W.N. 763 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 18. I think the rule is that this Court will not do anything like going into the merits when an appeal is available to the party, but if the lower Court whose order is impugned has entirely misconceived the question before it or committed such obvious irregularity, there is no reason why this Court should not interfere. In the very short order written by the learned District Munsif in this case he finds that the claimant's prima facie title is proved, and evidently he has not addressed his mind at all to the question of possession which is the question to be decided in this connection. In these circumstances the order is set aside and the petition referred to the District Munsif for disposal according to law.

2. Costs of this petition will be costs in the proceedings.


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