High CourtsDivision Bench(1915) 09 MAD CK 0070

Antoni Juas Prabhu vs Ramakrishnayya and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 September 1915 · Citation: AIR 1916 Mad 957 : 31 Ind. Cas. 263 : (1915) 2 LW 1034

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sadasiva Aiyar, J · Napier, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 207 words

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.—I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with plaintiff''s costs.

2.

The Appellate Court has power to reverse and remand for re-trial in a case like the present where a new party is added in appeal. That power is inherent in the Court and has not been taken away by anything in Order XLI, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially as the prohibitory provision in Section 564 of the old CPC has not been reproduced in the new Code.

Napier, J.

3.

I have held elsewhere that the power to remand is limited to cases where decisions on preliminary points are set aside by the Appellate Court. This view applies only, however, to cases where the construction of Order XLI, Rules 23, 24, 25 is a deciding factor. In my opinion, where an Appellate Court has added a party, those rules are inapplicable and we have to seek the proper procedure in Section 151, the Code not having made rules applicable to the position. We are not shown any reason why the procedure of the lower Appellate Court is unsustainable and I think that it is on the whole the most convenient. The appeal will be dismissed with costs of plaintiff.