Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Cheriamakantagath Mammad vs Uthama Chund Rama Chund Sett on 13 December, 1893
Equivalent citations: (1894) 4 MLJ 87
Author: Best


JUDGMENT

Best, J.

1. The preliminary objection is taken that this is not a case in which revision is allowed by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in support of this objection reference is made to the case reported in L. R, 11 I. A, 237, Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh.

2. On the other hand I have been referred on behalf of the petitioner to Birj Mohun Thakoor v. Rai Uma Nath Chowdhry L. R, 19 I. A, 154. In this latter case, however, it was expressly found that the Subordinate judge had “declined to exercise a jurisdiction which he had, and exercised one which did not belong to him;” the former, in not confirming under Section 312, a sale for the setting aside of which no application had been made under Section 311; and the latter, in setting aside the sale under Section 313 on the application of a persons not entitled to make such application under that section.

3. The present case is one in which the District Munsif clearly had jurisdiction and the mere fact of his decision being erroneous is not sufficient to justify its revision under Section 622 as held in L. R, 11 I.A, 237.

4. This petition is therefore dismissed with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

64 queries in 0.096 seconds.