Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (2.39 seconds)The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Major S. S. Khanna vs Brig. F.J. Dillon on 14 August, 1963
At any rate, it cannot be gainsaid that an appeal must lie to the High Court directly or mediately through the District Court and only then the High Court cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115. But if no appeal either directly or mediately through the District Court lie to the High Court against a particular order the High Court will have revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 to revise such an order. There was a cleavage of opinion on this point. But the matter has been concluded by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in S.S.Khanna v. F. J. Dhillon. AIR 1964 SC 497. It is observed in that case as under :-
Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal on 16 November, 1961
8. Again assuming for a moment that there is some procedural wrangle about this Court exercising jurisdiction for setting aside some orders which were clearly wrong and which come in the way of the plaintiff invoking Court's jurisdiction, in my opinion. I can set aside the aforementioned two orders or especially the earlier order in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court. It appears well settled that no procedural irregularity can come in the way of justice being done. Conversely all procedure has been devised to advance justice and not to retard the same. Where there is no express bar of any express provision of the Civil Procedure Code fettering the Court's power or precluding the Court from doing some thing, the Court to advance substantial justice can and must interfere so as to set aside the procedural irregularity to achieve the desired primary object for which the Court exists, namely, to do justice between the parties. As observed in Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal. AIR 1962 SC 527, the inherent power, has not been conferred upon the Court, it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. One of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take case that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors, and when the expression 'the act of the Court' is used, it does not mean merely the act of the Primary Court, or of any intermediate Court of appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole, from the lowest Court which entertains jurisdiction over the matter upto the highest Court which finally disposes of the case.
Section 19 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1