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.

Rahmat Ullah and ors. Vs. Rai Saheb Chaudhri Dharam Singh

Rahmat Ullah and ors. vs Rai Saheb Chaudhri Dharam Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 21, 1921
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/475741

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
Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Section 115 - Revision--Application to withdraw suit with liberty to bring fresh suit--Order--Jurisdiction, exercise of. - - It did not consider whether there was any ,or what defect in the suit or what other reason existed on account of which the suit was likely to fail, and ...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rahmat Ullah and ors.

Respondent

Rai Saheb Chaudhri Dharam Singh

Legal References

Reported In
64Ind.Cas.948

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - revision--application to withdraw suit with liberty to bring fresh suit--order--jurisdiction, exercise of. - - it did not consider whether there was any ,or what defect in the suit or what other reason existed on account of which the suit was likely to fail, and it apparently did not consider anything in the matter......in which he stated that the defendant had submitted to the decree granted to him (the plaintiff) but that the plaintiff did not wish 'for some reasons and defects' to proceed with the suit, and asked that he should be permitted to abandon that part of the suit which had been originally dismissed by the court of first instance with liberty to bring a fresh suit. he did not in the application assign the reasons for which he wished to withdraw from the suit, nor did he state the defects which precluded him from carrying on the suit. on this application the only order passed by the court was, 'allowed.' from this order of the court of first instance the present application for revision has been brought under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. in my opinion the court of first instance must be held not to have exercised its jurisdiction as required by law. it did not consider whether there was any , or what defect in the suit or what other reason existed on account of which the suit was likely to fail, and it apparently did not consider anything in the matter. so that in simply making the order 'allowed,' it cannot be held to have exercised its jurisdiction in the matter of the plaintiff's application and to have considered and decided it. in this view i must send back the case to the court of first instance, with directions to take up the application of the plaintiff for leave to withdraw and to consider it and then pass orders in accordance with law. costs here and hitherto will abide the result.

Full Judgment

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. This is an application for revision made under the following circumstances. The plaintiff brought a suit claiming several reliefs. Some of these reliefs were granted by the Court of first instance, which decreed a part of the claim and dismissed the remainder of it. The defendant submitted to the decree, but the plaintiff preferred an appeal as regards the portion of the claim which had been dismissed. The lower Appellate Court, being of opinion that the Court of first instance had not decided the case properly, remanded it to that Court with directions to re-try it. When the case went to trial, the plaintiff put in an application in which he stated that the defendant had submitted to the decree granted to him (the plaintiff) but that the plaintiff did not wish 'for some reasons and defects' to proceed with the suit, and asked that he should be permitted to abandon that part of the suit which had been originally dismissed by the Court of first instance with liberty to bring a fresh suit. He did not in the application assign the reasons for which he wished to withdraw from the suit, nor did he state the defects which precluded him from carrying on the suit. On this application the only order passed by the Court was, 'allowed.' From this order of the Court of first instance the present application for revision has been brought under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion the Court of first instance must be held not to have exercised its jurisdiction as required by law. It did not consider whether there was any , or what defect in the suit or what other reason existed on account of which the suit was likely to fail, and it apparently did not consider anything in the matter. So that in simply making the order 'allowed,' it cannot be held to have exercised its jurisdiction in the matter of the plaintiff's application and to have considered and decided it. In this view I must send back the case to the Court of first instance, with directions to take up the application of the plaintiff for leave to withdraw and to consider it and then pass orders in accordance with law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial