NARASAYYA Vs. COLLECTOR OF ANANTAPUR
COLLECTOR OF ANANTAPUR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) We think that the preliminary objection taken by the Government Pleader is wall founded, and that no appeal lies against the order of the District Judge passed under Section 16, Clause 7, of Madras Regulation III of 1802.
(2.) The vakil for the appellant argues that an appeal is given by Section 647, Civil Procedure Code, and relies on the decision of this Court in Sultan Ackeni Sahib V/s. Shaik Bava Malimiyar I.L.R. 4 Mad. 285.
(3.) That decision must, however, he held to be overruled by the decision of the Privy Council in Meenakshi Naidoo V/s. Subramaniya Sastri L.R. 14 I.A. 160 : I.L.R. 11 Mad. 26. In the case of Hureenath Koondu V/s. Modhoo Soodun Saka 19 W.R. (C.R.). 122. it was held that no appeal was given by Section 38 of Act XXIII of 1861 against an order passed under Regulation I of 1798. We do not think that, so far as the present matter is concerned, Section 647 of the present Civil Procedure Code differs in any material degree from Section 38 of Act XXIII of 1861, and in our opinion, the grounds of that decision are applicable to the present case. We dismiss this appeal with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.