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.

Hashmat Ali Vs. Mohan and ors.

Hashmat Ali vs Mohan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 01, 1920
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/477734

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
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908),Section 115 Revision - Limitation, wrong decision on question of High Court, whether will interfere. - - This objection is, in my opinion, well founded.

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hashmat Ali

Respondent

Mohan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Ayyar
Reported In
AIR1920All181; 55Ind.Cas.871

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908),section 115 revision - limitation, wrong decision on question of high court, whether will interfere. - - this objection is, in my opinion, well founded.p.c. banerji, j.1. this is an application for revision of a non appealable order on the ground that the court below has wrongly decided the question of limitation raised in the suit. the application is one under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. a preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the application on the ground that it is not maintainable under the provisions of that section. this objection is, in my opinion, well founded. there was no question of jurisdiction in the case and the only question is whether the court below in the exercise of its jurisdiction has committed a mistake of law. it was held by their lordships of the privy council in the case of balakrishna udayar v. vasudeva ayyar 40 ind. cas. 650 : 40 m. 793 : 15 a.l.j. 645 : 2 p.l.w. 101 : 33 m.l.j. 69 : 26 c.l.j. 143 : 19 bom. l.r. 715 : (1917) m.w.n. 628 : 6 l.w. 501 : 22 c.w.n. 50 : 11 bur. l.t. 48 : 44 i.a. 261 (p.c.) that 'the section applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it, or the illegal assumption of it. the section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved.' as i have already stated, there is no question of jurisdiction involved in this case. the question is whether the court below has committed a mistake of law in the exercise of its jurisdiction. that is not a question which can be considered by this court under the provisions of section 115, i accordingly dismiss the application with costs.

Full Judgment

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. This is an application for revision of a non appealable order on the ground that the Court below has wrongly decided the question of limitation raised in the suit. The application is one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the application on the ground that it is not maintainable under the provisions of that section. This objection is, in my opinion, well founded. There was no question of jurisdiction in the case and the only question is whether the Court below in the exercise of its jurisdiction has committed a mistake of law. It was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Ayyar 40 Ind. Cas. 650 : 40 M. 793 : 15 A.L.J. 645 : 2 P.L.W. 101 : 33 M.L.J. 69 : 26 C.L.J. 143 : 19 Bom. L.R. 715 : (1917) M.W.N. 628 : 6 L.W. 501 : 22 C.W.N. 50 : 11 Bur. L.T. 48 : 44 I.A. 261 (P.C.) that 'the section applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it, or the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved.' As I have already stated, there is no question of jurisdiction involved in this case. The question is whether the Court below has committed a mistake of law in the exercise of its jurisdiction. That is not a question which can be considered by this Court under the provisions of Section 115, I accordingly dismiss the application with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial