Madras High Court
Gopobondhu Behara vs D. Venkatesam Pantulu And Ors. on 17 August, 1923
Equivalent citations: 76IND. CAS.1030, AIR 1924 MADRAS 228
JUDGMENT Krishnan, J.
1. It is not denied that so far as this application is for getting a further enquiry ordered it was open to the petitioner to go to the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. That being so, even though this Court has concurrent jurisdiction in the matter, I think, it is a right course to adopt, to insist on the party exhausting all his remedies in an inferior Court before he comes up to this Court. See the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Abdus Sobhan 2 Ind. Cas. 846 : 36 C. 643 : 13 C.W.N. 733 : 10 Cr. L.J. 190, and by the Allahabad High Court in Sharif Ahmad v. Qabul Singh 63 Ind. Cas. 875 : 43 A. 407 : 19 A.L.J 425 : 3 U.P.L.r. (a) 77 : Cr. L.J. 715. The petition, therefore, so far as it asks for further enquiry is dismissed. The petitioner may, if so advised, move the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. As regards the order for compensation, no doubt it has been held that this Court alone can revise it. But as the order on the petition for further enquiry, if in favour of the petitioner, may have a material bearing on it, no order can be properly passed on it at this stage. The petition will be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move this Court again if so advised.