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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 131

VARADACHARIAR
Marudamuthu Poosari – Appellant
Versus
The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, represented by its President – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. This Revision Petition arises out of an application made to the lower Court to set aside the dismissal of a petition which had been presented to it under Section 84 of the Religious Endowments Act. The learned District Judge was evidently prepared, so far as the merits of the application went, to hold that there was sufficient cause for restoring the O.P.; but he felt constrained to dismiss the I.A. because he was of opinion that Order 9, Civil Procedure Code, did not apply to the case before him. I think that this view of the learned Judge rests upon a misapprehension.

2. It is in a sense right to say that the Religious Endow ments Act is self-contained, that is, that provisions of the Civil Procedure Code will not by their own force apply to every enquiry to be conducted by the authorities appointed or constituted under that Act. But when that Act allows suits or applications to be filed in a Civil Court, in relation to matters arising under the Act, the principle that the Act is self-contained is irrelevant to the question of the procedure to be followed by the Civil Court in dealing with such applications or suits. This will be clearly realised when 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