Jokhu Singh Vs. Chunnoo Lal - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Allahabad |
| Jul-23-1924 |
| AIR1925All218; 83Ind.Cas.133 |
| Jokhu Singh |
| Chunnoo Lal |
- kanhaiya lal, j.1. in a suit decided by the small cause court the defendant has been allowed to pay the decretal money by instalments of rs. 50 half yearly. the court below ought to have given reasons why it allowed the payment of the decretal money by instalments. but the omission to give reasons is after all an irregularity, and as held by their lordships of the privy council in mt. rahmat-un-nissa v. price a.i.r 1917 p.c. the discretion exercised by the court below ought not lightly to be interfered with.2. the learned counsel for the applicant refers to the decision in binda prasad v. madho prasad (1878-80) 2 all. 129, but that was an appeal in which the propriety of the decree could have been challenged on every possible ground. a reference has also been made to the decision in balgobind ram v. chhedi lal (1910) 11 c.l.j. 431. but where the question is one of discretion the ground why it was refused in one case is not relevant in other oases. the application is, therefore, dismissed.
Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. In a suit decided by the Small Cause Court the defendant has been allowed to pay the decretal money by instalments of Rs. 50 half yearly. The Court below ought to have given reasons why it allowed the payment of the decretal money by instalments. But the omission to give reasons is after all an irregularity, and as held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mt. Rahmat-un-nissa v. Price A.I.R 1917 P.C. the discretion exercised by the Court below ought not lightly to be interfered with.
2. The learned Counsel for the applicant refers to the decision in Binda Prasad v. Madho Prasad (1878-80) 2 All. 129, but that was an appeal in which the propriety of the decree could have been challenged on every possible ground. A reference has also been made to the decision in Balgobind Ram v. Chhedi Lal (1910) 11 C.L.J. 431. But where the question is one of discretion the ground why it was refused in one case is not relevant in other oases. The application is, therefore, dismissed.