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

1930 Supreme(Rang) 49

CARR
(Shakoor) Abdul Ganny – Appellant
Versus
Mrs I M Russell – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Carr, J - This is an application under Rule 9(2), Appellate Side Rules of Procedure of this Court to restore to the file an appeal struck off under Rule 9(1) for default of payment of process fees.

2. The application was not made within the eight days allowed by Sub-rule (2) and if that rule is intra vires I am in my opinion precluded from considering the application. But it is contended that, in so far as it prescribes a time limit different from that provided in Article 168, Lim. Act, the rule is ultra vires.

3. I think that this contention deserves consideration. The power given to this Court by Section 122, Civil P.C., by the Letters Patent and by Section 108, Government of India Act, is merely the power to regulate its procedure by rules and orders: Ma Than v. Mg Ba Gyaw A.I.R. 1926 Rang. 1. Rule 9(1) is in my view within that power, since whether an appeal is struck off by the Deputy Registrar for default of payment of process fees, or has to be laid before a Judge to be struck off is merely a matter of procedure. But Art 168, Limitation Act, allows an appellant whoso appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution 30 days within which to apply for its re-admission. D

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