Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Phillips
(Vaddiraju) Venkata Jagga Rao
Versus
Pitta Ranganayakulu
Decided On : 5 May, 1927
Rule 55 - Revision of Order by Governor's Agent - The court discussed the exercise of power under Agency Rule 55 by the Agent to the Governor, emphasizing that it can only be exercised if the Agent is satisfied that the lower court's order is not according to law. The court highlighted that the exercise of discretion by the lower court becomes final and is not subject to alteration by the appellate court, unless the Agent is satisfied that the discretion had not been properly exercised.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to revise an order passed by the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam setting aside the dismissal of a suit for default and ordering its restoration to file.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exercise of power under Agency Rule 55 by the Agent to the Governor is justified if the lower court's discretion had not been properly exercised, and the Agent is satisfied that the order is not according to law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the exercise of power under Agency Rule 55 by the Agent to the Governor and the discretion of the lower court in setting aside the dismissal of a suit for default.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the exercise of discretion by the lower court becomes final and is not subject to alteration by the appellate court, unless the Agent is satisfied that the discretion had not been properly exercised.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
Phillips, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to revise an order passed by the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam setting aside the dismissal of a suit for default and ordering its restoration to file. It is here contended that the power under Agency E. 55, given to the Agent to the Governor, can only be exercised if he is satisfied that the order of the lower Court is not according to law. It is significant that the Agency rules do not provide for any appeal against an order refusing to set aside a dismissal. Therefore the exercise of discretion by the first Court becomes final and is not subject to alteration by the appellate Court. If the Agent to the Governor was satisfied that this discretion had not been properly exercised by the first Court he would be justified in acting under Rule 55. In the present case, on the merits, his order is certainly rights for I am of opinion that the Special Assistant Agent omitted to take into consideration many circumstances which might probably have induced him to reconsider his order. If, therefore, the. Governors Agent thought that the Assistant Agent had not exercised his discretion judicially, as he evidently did, he was justified in taking action under Rule 55. The petition is dismissed with costs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
