High CourtsSingle Bench(1926) 12 MAD CK 0086

Chinnasami Pillai alias Muthukarruppa Pillai vs Powayee Ammal and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 16 December 1926 · Citation: 102 Ind. Cas. 877

HON’BLE JUDGES
Waller, 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

3 paragraphs · 157 words

Waller, J.—A preliminary objection is taken that the High Court should not interfere u/s 115 of the CPC in a case of this kind. That was the view taken by Phillips, J., in Acha v. Sankaran 95 Ind. Cas. 424 : (1926) M.W.N. 444 : 50 M.L.J. 497 : 23 L.W. 752; AIR 1926 Mad. 768. No doubt, other Judges of this Court have taken a different view, but, with all respect, I prefer to follow Phillips, J. Petitioner has other remedies open to him and it is, I think, no answer to say that the appropriate remedy is more cumbrous than that he seeks to obtain by way of revision.

2.

Assuming that I can interfere in such a matter in revision, I am unable to sea how any question of jurisdiction arises.

3.

The lower Court may be wrong, but it had jurisdiction to pass the order it did. The petition is dismissed with costs.