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

1917 Supreme(Mad) 462

SESHAGIRI AIYAR
Vaithilingam Chetty – Appellant
Versus
Kaliaperumal Mudali – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The suit was originally instituted on the Small Cause Side of the Subordinate Judges Court at Kumbakonam. He pronounced judgment on the 27th October 1915. A petition for review was presented to him on the 19th November 1915. He directed the issue of notice to the opposite party on the 27th November, On the 1st January 1916 a Special Small Cause Court was established at Kumbakonam which was invested with jurisdiction to try all small cause suits within a specified area. The High Court issued a circular, R.O.C. No. 3656 of 1916, dated 31st October 1916, in which it was stated that the Special Small Cause Judge alone shall have jurisdiction to hear all small sauae suits instituted after the 1st January 1916. Apparently on this circular the District Judge transferred the review petition from the Kumbakonarm Subordinate Court to the new Small Cause Court. The question for consideration is whether this transfer was right.

2. This petition was presented by the plaintiff and as I found that the opposite side was not represented before me, I requested Mr. Madhavan Nair to help me, as a question of considerable importance regarding the procedure was raised by the

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