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.

Pohkar Vs. Ram Lal

Pohkar vs Ram Lal

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 13, 1919
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/463640

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Agra Tenancy Act (II of 1901), Section 167 - Restitution, application for, dismissal, of--Revision--High Court, whether can interfere. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pohkar

Respondent

Ram Lal

Legal References

Reported In
52Ind.Cas.640

Excerpt

agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 167 - restitution, application for, dismissal, of--revision--high court, whether can interfere. - .....the first appellate court and the decree of this court. the assistant collector rejected the application and directed the applicant to file a regular suit. there can be no doubt that the order of the assistant collector is erroneous and must have been passed under a misapprehension. no remedy is open by way of a regular suit to the applicant to recover the balance of the money that was realised by the opposite party in execution of the decree of the first appellate court. a preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the opposite party to the application in revision to this court on the ground that no revision lies. this objection is supported by authority and we need only mention one case, vide damber singh v. sri kishun das 2 ind. cas. 377 : 6 a.l.j. 552 : 31 a. 445. on be-half of the applicant great stress is laid on the fact that if the present application is rejected, he, the applicant, has no remedy anywhere. we think that the application for restitution made by the applicant, though rejected by the learned assistant collector, does not prevent him, the applicant, from making another application before the revenue court. we have no doubt that if the matter is properly put before the learned assistant collector he will take action upon it. in any case the present application is not maintainable. we, therefore, dismiss it but in the circumstances of the case make no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application in revision from an order of an Assistant Collector rejecting the application of the applicant for restitution. It appears that a suit was brought against the applicant for recovery of profits. The learned Assistant Collector, in whose Court the suit was filed, decreed the claim of the opposite party for about Rs. 700. On appeal the decree in favour or the plaintiff was increased by a few hundred rupees on account of interest. In second appeal to this Court the decree was reduced to about Rs. 200. In the meantime the opposite party had executed the decree of the first Appellate Court. After the decision of the case in this Court, the applicant before us presented a petition to the Assistant Collector for restitution, namely, for the recovery of the difference between the decree of the first Appellate Court and the decree of this Court. The Assistant Collector rejected the application and directed the applicant to file a regular suit. There can be no doubt that the order of the Assistant Collector is erroneous and must have been passed under a misapprehension. No remedy is open by way of a regular suit to the applicant to recover the balance of the money that was realised by the opposite party in execution of the decree of the first Appellate Court. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the opposite party to the application in revision to this Court on the ground that no revision lies. This objection is supported by authority and we need only mention one case, vide Damber Singh v. Sri Kishun Das 2 Ind. Cas. 377 : 6 A.L.J. 552 : 31 A. 445. On be-half of the applicant great stress is laid on the fact that if the present application is rejected, he, the applicant, has no remedy anywhere. We think that the application for restitution made by the applicant, though rejected by the learned Assistant Collector, does not prevent him, the applicant, from making another application before the Revenue Court. We have no doubt that if the matter is properly put before the learned Assistant Collector he will take action upon it. In any case the present application is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss it but in the circumstances of the case make no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial