Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)

Abdul Majid vs Bedyadhar Saran Das on 14 July, 1916

The way the case was put on behalf of the petitioners is this. It is said that the suit as framed was a suit exclusively cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and that the Munsif who decided the case being a Munsif invested with the powers of the Small Cause Court, it ought to be taken that his decision was- the decision of a Court of Small Causes and was not therefore open to appeal. I take it as admitted that the suit was a suit ordinarily cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and that to this extent the case put forward by the petitioners is correct, Even then I should not be disposed to interfere in those proceedings in view of the fact that the case has been fully tried out and has not been disposed of in the summary way in which Small Cause Court cases are usually dealt with. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, referred me to a judgment of this Court, Abdul Majid v. Bedyadhar Saran Das (1916) I.L.R. 39 All. 101.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Kollipara Seetapaty vs Kantipati Subbayya on 5 March, 1909

That case follows a full bench decision of the Madras High Court--Kollipara Seetapathy v. Kankipati Subbayya (1909) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 323. The view taken in this latter case was that where a Small Cause suit is tried by a Munsif on the original side and his decision is reversed in appeal by the subordinate court the High Court is bound to set aside the decree in appeal as having been passed without jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1