Courts have a duty to decide petitions on their merits if they have jurisdiction, and cannot decline to exercise their jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy.

Headnote:
Order 9, Rule 9 - Pauper Petitions - The court held that Order 9, Rule 9 read along with Section 141, Civil Procedure Code, applies to pauper petitions. The court emphasized that if the court has jurisdiction to decide a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 141, it has a duty to decide such a petition on its merits and cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy.
Fact of the Case:

The lower Court declined to consider the application on the merits, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lower Court was wrong in declining to consider the application on the merits and remanded the case for disposal on the merits.
Issues: The issue was whether the lower Court was correct in declining to consider the application on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if the court has jurisdiction to decide a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 141, it has a duty to decide such a petition on its merits and cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the case was remanded to the lower Court for disposal on the merits.

JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. It seems to me that the lower Court was wrong in declining to consider this application on the merits. The case of Subbaraya Devai v. Sundaresa Devai (1932) 36 L.W. 586 is authority for the view that Order 9, Rule 9 read along with Section 141, Civil Procedure Code, does apply to pauper petitions. There is a conflict of authority on the question whether the dismissal for default of a pauper petition bars a future petition on the same grounds. But whether the decision operates as res judicata or not, if the Court has jurisdiction to decide a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 141, it has a duty to decide such a petition on its merits and cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy. The petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the lower Court for disposal on the merits. Costs to abide the result.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1939 Supreme(Mad) 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRASWadsworth, J.Krishna RaoVersusJanaki Ammal and Ors.Decided On : 24.02.1939

Courts have a duty to decide petitions on their merits if they have jurisdiction, and cannot decline to exercise their jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Wadsworth, J.
Krishna Rao
Versus
Janaki Ammal and Ors.
Decided On : 24.02.1939