Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DANIELS, J.
Mahadeo - Appellant
Versus
Kalloo & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-04-1923
JUDGMENT
Daniels, J. - This is an application for revision of an order passed by the learned Judge' of the Small Cause Court, Allahabad, under the following circumstances:
In Small Cause Court Suit No. 2891 of 1922 on the case coming on for hearing the plaintiff himself was in attendance but had no witness present. The Pleader for the defendant was also present. The learned Judge dismissed the suit for want of proof. The learned Judge afterwards discovered, or it was brought to his notice, that there was some documentary evidence on the record in support of the plaintiff's claim. He, thereupon, of his own motion and without any application set aside his own decree and fixed a fresh date for final hearing. If the learned Judge had made a mistake in overlooking evidence, the plaintiff had a remedy open to him by application for review under Order XLVII of the Code. When that remedy was open, it appears to me that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction u/s 151 of the Code to set aside what, subject to review, was a final decree. Section 151 is intended for exceptional cases for which there is no remedy except the use of the. Court's inherent powers. It is not intended to enable Courts to avade or ignore the provisions of. law which govern their procedure. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the order complained of. The respondent is unrepresented and the applicant does not press for his costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
