SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1897 Supreme(Cal) 215

TREVELYAN, STEVENS
Ram Narain Joshy – Appellant
Versus
Parmeswar Narain Mahta – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Trevelyan and Stevens, JJ. - In this case an objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent to the hearing of the appeal. He contends that as the Court in which the appeal was originally filed had no jurisdiction, the value of the appeal being in excess of Rs. 5,000, this Court, in which the same appeal is, by virtue of an order made u/s 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, now pending, cannot hear it. It is with extreme regret that we find ourselves compelled to give effect to this objection.

2. The facts shortly stated are these: Two suits were decided at the same time by the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpore. This case, which was an appeal from the judgment in one of those suits, was filed on the 3rd of September 1894 in the Court of the District Judge of Tirhoot, The appeal in the other suit was filed here, and has been heard by a Division Bench of this Court. When this appeal was filed in the District Judge's Court an officer of the Court made the following note: "Filed value of claim is not mentioned in the memorandum, but it appears from the certified copy of the decree filed along with the memorandum that the value of claim amounts to Rs. 9,855. Thus t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top