Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Pyda Ramakrishnayya Garu And Anr. vs Kuchipudi Naganna And Ors. on 30 August, 1933 cites

Balijepalli Ramakoti Suryanarayana ... vs Kampalli Ramachendrudu And Ors. on 18 April, 1932

See also Suryanarayana v. Ratnachendrudu (1932) 37 L.W. 655. An application under Order 21, Rule 58 is not mentioned specifically as one of the applications triable by the Revenue Court in Section 189, Part B of the schedule. Mr. Somasundaram argues by analogy that if a Revenue Court can entertain an application which does not fall within the applications mentioned in Part B of the schedule, it can also hear a suit though that particular suit is not mentioned in Part A of the schedule as a suit triable by the Revenue Court. This argument is based upon a confusion between the scope of Section 189 and Section 192 of the Estates Land Act and cannot be accepted. The section that confers jurisdiction on the Revenue Court to hear suits and applications is Section 189; and suits and applications which a Revenue Court can hear and determine are specified in Parts A and B of the schedule. Section 192 of the Estates Land Act has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of a Court to hear and determine applications. It relates to procedure. It lays down what procedure shall be followed by a Revenue Court under the Estates Land Act in hearing and determining suits, applications, etc., which it has jurisdiction to hear and determine. That section does not in any way enlarge the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Revenue Court under Section 189. It simply deals with the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Court and does nothing more. As contemplated by the Estates Land Act, an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, is not a substantive application like the applications mentioned in Part B of the schedule but it is only a provision relating to procedure which should be followed when the Revenue Court has to hear and determine suits, appeals or other proceedings under the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1