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


Madras High Court
Venkatamma vs Chengalrayappa on 8 August, 1884
Equivalent citations: (1883) ILR 7 Mad 556
Bench: C A Turner, Kt., Hutchins


JUDGMENT

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Hutchins, J.

1. We agree with the High Court of Calcutta in Nanuk Pershad v. Lalla Nitya Lall I.L.R. 6 Cal. 40, that the Act XXVII of 1860 gives the Judge no power to cancel the certificate, though, with all respect for the learned Judges who heard that case, we cannot convince ourselves that the Judge would have power, independently of the Act, to cancel the certificate, otherwise than on review. The question then arises whether we can entertain an appeal from the order.

2. It appears that the application was presented as an appeal, but that the learned Judge, who admitted it, directed that it should be amended and received as an application under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. In our judgment an appeal lay under the general provisions of the Procedure Code, and, treating this as an appeal, we set aside the order of the Judge and direct the respondent to bear the appellant’s costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 1.486 seconds.