Issue
Decision
Ramachandram Pillai
v.
Neelambal Achi
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Civil Revision Petition No. 607 Of 1921 | 18-04-1922
The same question is in issue in both the suits, i.e., the validity of the alienation by respondent to petitioner, and the disposal of the issue in the first suit will practically dispose of the second suit, for petitioner does not dispute his liability under the mortgage if the alienation is valid.
The Subordinate Judges order refusing to stay proceedings therefore involves a question of jurisdiction, for he has assumed jurisdiction which is denied to him by Sect. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued for respondent that this Court has no power to interfere in revision with orders under Sect. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and reliance is placed on Sultanat Jahan Begam v. Sundar Lal (I.L.R., 42 All., 409). In that case, however, the order sought to be revised was an order of stay and not a refusal to stay and thus the Court has not assumed jurisdiction which it did not possess. If the decision is meant to apply to all orders under Sect. 10, Civil Procedure Code, I must with all respect dissent, for this High Court has consistently allowed revision in cases of mere interlocutory orders, and I see no reason to refuse jurisdiction in this case. The Subordinate Judges order is therefore set aside and proceedings stayed in Original Suit No. 19 of 1920. Respondent will pay petitioners costs of this petition.
C. K. Petition allowed.
The Subordinate Judges order refusing to stay proceedings therefore involves a question of jurisdiction, for he has assumed jurisdiction which is denied to him by Sect. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued for respondent that this Court has no power to interfere in revision with orders under Sect. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and reliance is placed on Sultanat Jahan Begam v. Sundar Lal (I.L.R., 42 All., 409). In that case, however, the order sought to be revised was an order of stay and not a refusal to stay and thus the Court has not assumed jurisdiction which it did not possess. If the decision is meant to apply to all orders under Sect. 10, Civil Procedure Code, I must with all respect dissent, for this High Court has consistently allowed revision in cases of mere interlocutory orders, and I see no reason to refuse jurisdiction in this case. The Subordinate Judges order is therefore set aside and proceedings stayed in Original Suit No. 19 of 1920. Respondent will pay petitioners costs of this petition.
C. K. Petition allowed.
Advocates List
For the Petitioner K. Rajah Aiyar, Advocate. For the Respondent S. Viswanatha Aiyar, S. Srinivasa Aiyar, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PHILLIPS
Eq Citation
70 IND. CAS. 5
AIR 1923 MAD 88
LQ/MadHC/1922/118
HeadNote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 10 — Stay of proceedings — Subordinate Judge's order refusing to stay proceedings, held, involves a question of jurisdiction, for he has assumed jurisdiction which is denied to him by S. 10 — Orders under S. 10, C.P.C., 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
