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

1917 Supreme(All) 269

PIGGOTT, WALSH
Ant Ram – Appellant
Versus
Mithanlal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - 1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff, whose suit to recover from the two defendants, his own brothers, a sum amounting to Rs. 340, after having been decreed by the Court of first instance, has been decreed in part only by the lower Appellate Court. The sum covered by this appeal is Rs. 190. On behalf of the defendants-respondents a peliminary objection was raised to the effect that the cognizance of this appeal is barred by Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have to determine whether the suit brought by the plaintiff Ant Ram was or was not one of a nature cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. It was a simple claim for money to an amount falling short of Rs. 500 and therefore fell within the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, unless excluded by some Article in the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887). There is really one Article alone (Article 41) about which there can ba any substantial argument. Something has been said about Articles 33 and 42, but they are so clearly inapplicable that we need not mention them further. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the suit in question is a suit for con

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