Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Mathra Parshad

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 31, 1969
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/452393

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Stat. 24 and 25. Vic. c. 104 (High Court's Act), Section 15 - Powers of superintendence of High Court--Act VIII of 1859, Section 378--Review of judgment. - - Where a Subordinate Court has obviously failed to perform its duty, and there is no remedy by appeal, it appears to us within the competency of this Court, u...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Mathra Parshad

Legal References

Reported In
(1875)ILR1All296

Excerpt

stat. 24 and 25. vic. c. 104 (high court's act), section 15 - powers of superintendence of high court--act viii of 1859, section 378--review of judgment. - - where a subordinate court has obviously failed to perform its duty, and there is no remedy by appeal, it appears to us within the competency of this court, under the general powers of superintendence with which it is invested under section 15 of the letters patent, to point out to the subordinate court its error and to direct it to proceed according to law.order1. it is obvious that the subordinate judge has misconceived the duty imposed on him. the circumstance that the decree, of which a review was sought, was passed by his predecessor did not discharge the subordinate judge from the obligation of considering whether any sufficient grounds were shown for the application. where a subordinate court has obviously failed to perform its duty, and there is no remedy by appeal, it appears to us within the competency of this court, under the general powers of superintendence with which it is invested under section 15 of the letters patent, to point out to the subordinate court its error and to direct it to proceed according to law. the subordinate judge is therefore directed to reconsider the application presented to him, and to deal with it as if a review was sought of a decree which he had himself passed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. It is obvious that the Subordinate Judge has misconceived the duty imposed on him. The circumstance that the decree, of which a review was sought, was passed by his predecessor did not discharge the Subordinate Judge from the obligation of considering whether any sufficient grounds were shown for the application. Where a Subordinate Court has obviously failed to perform its duty, and there is no remedy by appeal, it appears to us within the competency of this Court, under the general powers of superintendence with which it is invested under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, to point out to the Subordinate Court its error and to direct it to proceed according to law. The Subordinate Judge is therefore directed to reconsider the application presented to him, and to deal with it as if a review was sought of a decree which he had himself passed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial