Makund Ram Vs Bodh Kishen

Allahabad High Court 24 Jul 1897 (1898) ILR (All) 80
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

Banerji, J

Final Decision

Dismissed

Judgement Text

Translate:

Banerji, J.@mdashA preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal by the learned vakil for the respondent on the ground that

no appeal lies to this Court, the suit being one of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The suit was one to recover from the

defendant Rs. 130 under the following circumstances:--The defendant, in execution of a decree held by him against certain judgment-debtors,

caused some property to be sold at auction and the plaintiff purchased it. Subsequently the plaintiff applied u/s 315 of the CPC to the Court which

executed the decree for a refund of the sale price paid by him on the allegation that the judgment-debtors had no saleable interest in the property

sold. That application having been disallowed, he brought the present suit against the defendant, decree-holder, to recover from him the sale price

paid by the plaintiff, together with interest. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that this was a suit which was not excluded from the cognizance

of a Court of Small Causes by the second schedule to Act No. IX of 1887. If the suit does not come within any of the classes of suits specified in

that schedule it is a suit which, under the second paragraph of Section 15 of Act No. IX of 1887, was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. In

my opinion the suit was not covered by any of the articles mentioned in the second schedule as excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small

Causes. The learned vakil for the appellant refers to Article 23 which relates to ""suits to alter or set aside a decision, decree or order of a Court or

of a person acting in a judicial capacity."" This is not a suit to set aside any order. If a decree be passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff, it may

have the effect of nullifying the order of the Munsif refusing to refund to the plaintiff the sale price paid by him, but that circumstance would not

make the suit a suit to set aside a decision, decree or order, which it does not purport to be. The amount claimed being a sum not exceeding Rs.

500, a second appeal is barred by Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is dismissed

From The Blog
SC: Written Arrest Grounds Mandatory, Oral Explanation Insufficient
Oct
18
2025

Story

SC: Written Arrest Grounds Mandatory, Oral Explanation Insufficient
Read More
SC Raps Insurers for Unnecessary Appeals, Delaying Payouts
Oct
18
2025

Story

SC Raps Insurers for Unnecessary Appeals, Delaying Payouts
Read More