Back
1922 Supreme(SC) 11
Privy Council
Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge, Shaw, Justice Viscount Cave, JJ.
Shew Darshan Singh -Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, Partabgarh -Resopndent
Decided On : 20-02-1922
India Office, Rogers and Nevill, Barrow, De Gruyther, Hyam
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no reason to deviate from its careful judgment, while noting that the submission of an excessively voluminous and irrelevant record is improper.
Headnote:(A) Appeal - Affirmation of lower court's decision - The appellate court found no reason to differ from the careful judgment of the lower tribunal. (Para 1)
(B) Costs - Printing of record - Submission of an excessively voluminous record containing irrelevant and unnecessary matter may lead to the imposition of costs on the party responsible for such printing. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the decision of a lower tribunal. The record submitted to the appellate court was found to contain an enormous mass of irrelevant and unnecessary matter, resulting in the omission of a significant number of pages before the board's review.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to differ from the judgment of the lower tribunal.
Issues: Whether the judgment of the lower tribunal was flawed and warranted interference by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court will not interfere with a careful and well-reasoned judgment of a lower tribunal if no reason for differing is found.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- appeals
- costs
Viscount Cave:-
Their Lordships have considered the arguments addressed to them in support of these appeals, but they sea no reason whatever for differing from the careful judgment of the Judicial Com missioners, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that these appeals fail and should be dismissed with costs.
It is desirable to add a few words of comment in this case. When the record originally came to this country it con tained an enormous mass of wholly irrele vant and unnecessary matter. Under directions given in the Privy Council Office no less than 781 pages were omitted from the record before it was put together for the use of the Board. On looking through what is left it is not improbable that even more of the matter printed here might have been dispensed with. If the decision of the Board had been in favour of the appellants, directions would certainly have been given which would have com pelled the appellants in any event to pay a large part of the costs of printing the record; but as the order of the Board is that they pay all the costs of the appeals it is needless to make any special order in this case.
Appeal dismissed.
