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

1965 Supreme(All) 343

B. DAYAL, D. D. SETH
Ram Narain – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal Vishwakarma – Respondent


JUDGMENT

B. Dayal, J. - This is a revision u/s 115 CPC against a judgment of the Addl. District Judge hearing a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case was originally listed before a learned single Judge of this Court but it has been referred to the Division Bench as a question of law was raised that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the revision. The whole case having been referred to this Bench, we will therefore dispose off the revision itself.

2. On the question of law, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the District Judge was empowered under the amended Section 25 of the Act to hear revisions. Power, has not been given to the Additional District Judge and u/s 40 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, it is provided by Sub-section (2) that other sections of this Act do not apply to these Courts. We are unable to agree. This Sub-section only means that Section 15, 32, 35, 38 and 39 which have been applied to the Provincial Small Cause Courts by Sub-section (1) are the only sections which are applicable, to cases when being tried by Courts of Small Caus

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