Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Muppavaraju Venkata Radhakrishna Rao ... vs Venthurumilli Venkatarao And Ors. on 29 July, 1924

Karupanna Pillai vs Ethumalai Pillai on 11 February, 1927

An authority for this position I need, only refer to Muppavaraju Venkata Radhakrishna Rao v. Venthurumilli Venkatarao and a recent case decided by Devadoss 84 Ind. Cas. 965 : 48 M. 713 : 47 M.L.J. 552 : 20 L.W. 711 : 35 M.L.T. 135 : (1924) M.W.N. 922 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 229 and Sundaram Chetty, JJ. A. A. Order No. 107 of 1925. I agree that the remand order must be deemed to have been passed in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction possessed by the Court. Accordingly no appeal lies, against it under Order XLIII, Rule l,Clause (u).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Methuku Narasimhaiah Chetty And Anr. vs Methuku Sivaramiah Chetty And Ors. on 2 September, 1947

449 and Radhakrishna Rao v. Venkatarao 1924) 47 M.L.J. 552 I.L.R. 48 Mad. 713 the rule was amended so as to enable appeals to be filed not only in cases where the Court exercises the power of remand under its inherent powers under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, but also in cases where the remand has to be ordered in the interests of justice such as where a new case or a new cause of action was introduced by amendment of the pleadings in appeal or where at the appellate stage new evidence documentary or oral was allowed altering the complexion of the trial or a new party was permitted to be brought on record necessitating the raising of fresh defence. Even after the amendment, it is implicit in the rule that there should be some trial still requiring to be conducted after the remand. In answer to this contention Mr. Sampath Aiyangar has drawn attention to the definition of " decree " in Clause (2) of Section 2 which is in these terms:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V. Venkatarama Aiyar vs T.V. Sundaram Aiyar And Ors. on 22 October, 1925

1. It has been argued before us that no appeal lies in this case. We are clear that an order of remand in case where the Trial Court has disposed itself of all the issues and given a decree on those findings cannot come within the scope of Order XLI, Rule 23, and that, therefore, no appeal lies. Certain decisions of this Court have been cited before us to the effect that the order of remand must be deemed to have been passed, though improperly passed, under Order XLI, Rule 23 and that therefore an appeal lies, but no decision quoted has the effect of overruling the view we took in a similar case, Muppavarajii Venkata Radhahriskna Rao v. Venthurumilli Venkatarao 81 Ind. Cas. 935 : (1924) M.W.N. 922 : 47 M.L.J. 552 : 23 L.W. 711 : 35 M.L.T. 135 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 229 : 48 M.L.J. 713 which we see ho reason at present to abandon. We hold, therefore, that no appeal lies. The appeal against order is dismissed. In the civil revision petition we are confined to the question whether the Subordinate Judge exceeded or improperly exercised his jurisdiction in the order under revision. That order displays several inconsistencies and is obscure in its purport. The Subordinate Judge holds at one stage, e.g., that 3rd defendant is not a necessary party and yet remands the case retaining him on the record. Again at another stage he remands "the whole case" while he lays down that only issues Nos. 5 and 6 are to be re-tried. He does not say wherefrom he gets a jurisdiction to remand the whole case for re-trial merely because he wishes further evidence on those issues, particularly when the Trial Court has considered those issues on the evidence which was put in before it and recorded its findings thereon. It appears to us that the Subordinate Judge's order wag made without jurisdiction and that the proper course in the circumstances was for him to direct the principal District Munsif to take the further evidence he wished and submit it to his Court, whereon he would record his own finding. We set aside the order of remand and direct that the decision of the principal District Munsif stand, and that the District Judge do call for any further evidence he requires and on its receipt decide the appeal de novo for himself. We would make it clear that the lower Appellate Court's decision that the 3rd defendant is not a necessary party falls to the ground along with the reversal of its order and is, therefore, still open for decision at the re-hearing of the appeal. The civil revision petition is allowed to this extent. There will be no order as to costs either in the civil revision petition or the appeal against order.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1