Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 1939
  6. /
  7. January

Sardar Singh vs Chhotey Lal

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 November, 1939

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT Bennet, J.
1. This is a civil revision by Rai Bahadur Kr. Sardar Singh judgment-debtor against R.B.B. Chhotey Lal decree-holder. The facts of this case have been set out in our order in F.A.F.O. No. 167 of 1937 Reported in AIR 1940 All 193 between the same parties. Mr. Hamilton as a special officer designated by the Local Government under Section 35 C of the U.P. District Boards Act of 1922 made a decree awarding the decree-holder opposite party Rs. 4007-12-0. This decree was sent to the Collector of Moradabad and he transferred it to an Assistant Collector. Before the Assistant Collector certain objections were taken to the execution of the decree. It was contested that the application was a nullity and that the Court had no power to entertain it. The Assistant Collector held that he had no power to go behind the decree passed by a tribunal appointed by the Government and he ordered that execution proceedings should proceed. Objection is taken that no civil revision lies to this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act, (Act 3 of 1926). This Section provides:
The High Court may call for the record of any suit or application which has been decided by any Subordinate Revenue Court and in which an appeal lies to the District Judge and in which no appeal lies to the High Court and if such Subordinate Revenue Court appears, etc.
2. It will be seen that one of the conditions for a revision to lie to the High Court is that an appeal must lie to the District Judge from the suit or application decided by the Subordinate Revenue Court. In Section 248, Sub-section (3), Tenancy Act, it is provided:
An appeal shall lie from the following orders of an Assistant Collector of the first class or of a Collector, namely, orders mentioned in Sections 47 and 104 and in Order 43, Rule 1, Civil P.C., 1908. Such appeal shall lie to the Court, if any, having jurisdiction under Section 242 of this Act to hear an appeal from the decree in the suit, or in the case of applications for execution, the Court having jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decree which is being executed.
3. This provision shows that the appeal will lie to the District Judge if the District Judge had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decree which is being executed. In the present case, the decree was passed by Mr. Hamilton in his capacity of a persona designata by the Local Government under Section 3 5-C, District Boards Act. No appeal would lie from his decree to the Court of the District Judge. Therefore, under the provision quoted in Section 248, Sub-section (3) an appeal cannot lie to the Court of the District Judge from the order in execution of that decree passed by the Assistant Collector. We therefore return to Section 253, Tenancy Act, and we find that as no appeal lay to the District Judge from the order in this application therefore no revision lies under Section 253 to the High Court. Some reference was made to the provisions of Section 242, Tenancy Act, but that deals with appeals from original decrees and an appeal from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class to the District Judge. Now, the decree in question was not passed by an Assistant Collector and therefore Section 242 does not apply. We hold that no revision lies to the High Court and we dismiss this application in revision with costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sardar Singh vs Chhotey Lal

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 November, 1939