High CourtsDivision Bench(1948) 03 MAD CK 0033

Subramania Kandar vs Ramaswami Kandar

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 March 1948 · Citation: (1949) CriLJ 201 : (1948) 61 LW 405 : (1948) 1 MLJ 406

HON’BLE JUDGES
Govinda Menon, 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

2 paragraphs · 109 words

Govinda Menon, J.—The learned Sessions Judge is perfectly right in holding that a revision dismissed for default of appearance cannot be restored to file. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure analogous to Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC or its equivalent in Order 41, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code.

2.

As the complaint was dismissed by the Court of First Instance only u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it does not prevent the complainant from filing a fresh complaint, if there are sufficient facts justifying such a course. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is correct. The revision petitions are dismissed.