Decided on August 23,1950

Rambhoresingh Appellant
MADHO RAO Respondents


Dixit, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge, Gwalior, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court allowing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment of the defendant -appellant from a house and arrears of rent. The appeal was admitted by me on 13 -7 -50 and the execution of the decree in so far as it relates to ejectment was ordered to be stayed and notice was directed to be issued to the respondent to show cause why the stay order should not be made absolute. The appeal was put up before me for hearing contentions of the parties on the question of stay of execution of the decree.
(2.)MR . Ganga Sahay Garg for the respondent contended that this appeal is incompetent as the valuation of the suit out of which this appeal arises is less than Rs. 500 and the District Judge has affirmed the decision of the trial Court. Mr. Garg maintained that under S. 525, Gwalior Civil P.C., no appeal lies in such circumstances and that the defendant bad only a right of revision. Learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the fact that the defendant had in fact filed a revision petition in this Court (civ. Rev. No. 108/1950) against the decision of the District; Judge from which he has now filed this appeal and that the revision petition was rejected by this Court on 1 -6 -1950. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are valid. From the record of the Civ. Rev. No. 108 of 1950, I find that the appellant had in fact filed a revision petition against the decision of the District Judge and the petition, was dismissed on the ground that it involved an interference in the finding of facts given by the Courts below. This appeal is from the very decision against which the appellant had filed a revision petition. This appeal was filed on 1 -7 -1950 by Mr. Pancholi, who appeared for the defendant, Rambharose Singh in the Rev. petn. No 108/1950, and he was fully aware of the fact that the revision petition had been rejected. In these circumstances it is surprising to find that Mr. Pancholi ventured to file this appeal without making any mention whatsoever of the previous revision petition. On the date on which this appeal was admitted Mr. Anand appeared for the appellant and argued the appeal without being made aware by Mr. Pancholi of the filing and the dismissal of the revision petition. As no appeal lay against the decision of the District Judge and as a revision petition against the decision had in fact been dismissed by this Court the filing of this appeal was, in my view, nothing short of an attempt to mislead this Court. Mr. Pancholi expressed his regret for not disclosing the full circumstances in which this appeal was filed. He, however, tried to suggest that such a thing is frequently done. I know that if an appeal is rejected as incompetent, the party concerned some times files, subsequently, a revision petition and vice versa. But I have not come across a case in which a revision petition having been dismissed on merits and the decision of the lower Court having become final, the party invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by subsequently filing an appeal against the decision of the lower Court which had become final and suppressing at the same time the fact of the dismissal of the revision petition. In my judgment in a matter of this kind such an excuse is worse than no excuse at all. I would only say that in filing this appeal without disclosing the fact of dismissal of the previous revision petition, Mr. Pancholi has not upheld the high standard of the profession to which he belongs. I with to state in the most emphatic terms that if this kind of thing has been done in the past, it is not to be done in the future.
As the appeal is clearly incompetent, I dismiss the appeal itself and the stay order granted on 13 -7 -50 shall ipso facto stand vacated. The appellant to pay to the respondent coats in all the Courts.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.