Skip to content


Jadu Mani Boistabee Vs. Ram Kumar Chakravarti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR29Cal239
AppellantJadu Mani Boistabee
RespondentRam Kumar Chakravarti
Excerpt:
presidency small cause court's act (xv of 1882 as amended by act i of 1898) section 38 - new trial--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) section 373--withdrawal of a suit--jurisdiction of the small cause court to pass an order under section 373 of the civil procedure code after granting a new trial. - .....373, c. p. c. with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action. the present rule was granted to show cause why this order should not be set aside. the grounds upon which the application was made are (i) that the order of the small cause court judges does not disclose any ground, such as is referred to in section 373, c. p. c. upon which permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action has been granted; and (ii) that as in granting the new trial the court of small causes was exercising its revisional and not its original jurisdiction, it had no authority to allow the suit to be withdrawn under section 373.3. in our opinion there is no force in either of these contentions.4. the orders of the court of small causes are,.....
Judgment:

Rampini and Pratt, JJ.

1. This is a rule, calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Court below, complained of by the petitioner, should not be set aside.

2. It appears that the plaintiffs, who are the opposite parties in this rule, brought a suit against the applicant in the Calcutta Small Cause Court, and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs, opposite parties, then made an application for a new trial, which was granted, the suit being allowed to be withdrawn under Section 373, C. P. C. with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action. The present rule was granted to show cause why this order should not be set aside. The grounds upon which the application was made are (i) that the order of the Small Cause Court Judges does not disclose any ground, such as is referred to in Section 373, C. P. C. upon which permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action has been granted; and (ii) that as in granting the new trial the Court of Small Causes was exercising its revisional and not its original jurisdiction, it had no authority to allow the suit to be withdrawn under Section 373.

3. In our opinion there is no force in either of these contentions.

4. The orders of the Court of Small Causes are, of course, recorded with great brevity; and because in the order complained of, there is no ground such as is specified in Section 373, C. P. C. it does not follow that there was no ground made out to the satisfaction of the Judges, who granted the application.

5. As regards the second ground, although it may be that the learned Judges, when granting the application for a new trial were exercising their revisional powers, yet, as soon as they had passed the order granting the new trial, their revisional jurisdiction ceased, and then they had jurisdiction to deal with the case as an Original Court, and as such had perfect authority to pass the order under Section 373. There is no reason for supposing that there is any defect or illegality in the proceedings of the Judges of the Small Cause Court in this case. The rule is discharged with costs.


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