AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Agarwala, J.—The plaintiffs sued the defendants to redeem a usufructuary mortgage and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000 odd as the surplus profits of the mortgaged property. The suit, for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, was valued at Rs. 2,000 which was the sum expressed to be secured by the instrument. The defence challenged the jurisdiction of the Courts to try the suit. This issue and the other issues were decided against the defendants and the suit was decreed. The defendants preferred an appeal to the District Judge paying a court-fee on the memorandum of appeal on Rs. 2,000.
An additional court-fee on the surplus profits which had been decreed being demanded the deficit court-fee was paid by the defendants. Eventually however the appeal was dismissed for the defendants'' non-appearance. Against that order the present application has been made in revision.
The learned advocate for the applicants has raised a question of jurisdiction of the trial Court. In a similar case it was decided in Grandhi Pothanna Vs. Simhadri Satyananda Charyulu and Another, by Chetty, J., of the Madras High Court that the valuation of a suit like the present, for the purposes of jurisdiction, is the same as the valuation for the purposes of court-fees, and depends on the principal amount of the mortgage. In that case the learned Judge followed a previous decision of the Madras High Court.
In this view of the matter the Munsif in whose Court the present suit was instituted had jurisdiction to try it. And even if this view of the matter were not right, the application would have to be rejected on another ground. Since the decision of the Special Bench in Raghunandan Prasad Missra v. Ram Charan Manda AIR 1919 Pat 425, this Court has consistently held that it will not interfere in revision when there is another remedy open to the aggrieved party. The proper remedy against the order dismissing the appeal for non-appearance of the appellants was by an application to restore the appeal and not by an application to this Court.
No special ground has been made out or suggested why the revisional powers of this Court should be exercised when no application to restore the appeal was made by the appellants to the lower appellate Court. The application is rejected. The opposite party are entitled to their costs: hearing fee three gold mohurs.