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

1959 Supreme(Raj) 88

SARJOO PROSAD, BAPNA
Firm Murlidhar – Appellant
Versus
Firm Kishorilal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Hastimal, for Appellant; S.C.L. Agarwal, for Respondents

Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.—The preliminary point which Bhandari J. has referred for our consideration is "Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Alwar dated the 22nd of March 1954 lay to the High Court or to the District Judge, Alwar," The reference has been necessitated because the learned Judge was doubtful of the view taken by Modi, J. in some earlier decisions of this Court to which reference will be made in due course.

2. The facts relevant to the context have been aptly summed up by Bhandari J. The plaintiff instituted the suit to which the appeal relates for recovery of over Rs. 6,000/-from the defendants in the court of the Civil Judge, Alwar, on July 26, 1948. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on the 22nd of March, 1954. It is important to remember that at the time of the institution of the suit, the Alwar State Civil Procedure Code, 1947 (No. 16 of 1947) was in force in the erstwhile Alwar State. The law reining to Civil Courts was provided in the United States of Matsya Civil Courts Ordinance, 1948 (No. 5 of 1948) promulgated on the 28th of March 1948 which applied to Alwar also and under sec. 10 of this O













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