Madras High Court
Muthuvaien Represented By His Agent, ... vs Periasami Iyen And Ors. on 11 September, 1903
Equivalent citations: (1903)13MLJ497
JUDGMENT
1. Although the matter immediately dealt with by the Privy Council in Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry v. Kalisundari Debi L.R. 9 C. 482 and by this Court in Sabapathi v. Narayanasami I.L.R. 25 M. 555 related to the opening sentence of Section 588, Civil Procedure Code, and it was held that Section 585, does not operate to control Section 15 of the Letters Patent which provides for an appeal from the Judgment of single judge of the High Court, to the High Court yet the reasoning open which the decisions proceed and particularly the decision in Subapathi v. Narayasami I.L.R. 25 M. 555 are equally applicable to the construction to be placed on the concluding sentence of Section 585, Civil Procedure Code, declaring that orders passed in appeals under that section shall be final,
2. It is clear that the word 'final' is not used in the sense that it is not subject to review by the same Court or to revision by the High Court or to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 595 Civil Procedure Code.
3. The word 'final' is used in the section simply in the sense that there shall be no second appeal to a court of a higher grade, and in this view it is not inconsistent with the provision made by Section 15 of the Letters Patent in appeals from the judgment of one judge of the High Court to the High Court.
4. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection. On the merits there is no ground for this appeal.
5. This appeal is dismissed with costs.