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.

Maiku Lal Vs. Mulaim Singh and ors.

Maiku Lal vs Mulaim Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 11, 1921
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/478039

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Section 152 - Amendment of decree--Appellate Court, power of, to amend decree of Trial Court. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Maiku Lal

Respondent

Mulaim Singh and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan
Reported In
AIR1921All130; 62Ind.Cas.910

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 152 - amendment of decree--appellate court, power of, to amend decree of trial court. - tudball, j.1. a decree was passed in a mortgage suit. an appeal was preferred and the appellate court upheld the decree and dismissed the appeal. there are apparently some errors on the face of the decree, as drawn up in the court of first instance. that court on application made to it held that it had no power to amend the decree inasmuch as that power now vested in the appellate court. on application to the appellate court, the judge held that his dearer, that is the decree of the appellate court, contained no errors and that be had no power whatsoever to amend the decree as drawn up in the court of first instance.2. the learned judge referred to the same ruling as the court of first instance, namely, that of muhammad sulaiman khan v. muhammad yar khan 11 a. 267 : a.w.n. (1889) 55 : 13 ind. jur. 427 : 6 ind. dec. (n.s.) 598, i.l.r. 11 allahabad 267, which is also reported in the weekly notes for 1889 at page 55. the lower court's order is obviously incorrect. the learned judge has overlooked the fast that his decree now includes the decree of the court of first instance. the two decrees have merged into one decree and for the purposes of execution must be read together as constituting one and the same decree the judge has power to amend, and he must, therefore, go into the application, examine the decrees of both the courts and if there are any errors, he must amend them. i set aside the order of the court below and remand the case to that court with orders to re admit the application and to consider and decide it in view of the remarks made above.3. as nobody appears to oppose this application in this court, the applicant will have half his costs in this court. the costs in the court below will abide the result.

Full Judgment

Tudball, J.

1. A decree was passed in a mortgage suit. An appeal was preferred and the Appellate Court upheld the decree and dismissed the appeal. There are apparently some errors on the face of the decree, as drawn up in the Court of first instance. That Court on application made to it held that it had no power to amend the decree inasmuch as that power now vested in the Appellate Court. On application to the Appellate Court, the Judge held that his dearer, that is the decree of the Appellate Court, contained no errors and that be had no power whatsoever to amend the decree as drawn up in the Court of first instance.

2. The learned Judge referred to the same ruling as the Court of first instance, namely, that of Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan 11 A. 267 : A.W.N. (1889) 55 : 13 Ind. Jur. 427 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 598, I.L.R. 11 Allahabad 267, which is also reported in the Weekly Notes for 1889 at page 55. The lower Court's order is obviously incorrect. The learned Judge has overlooked the fast that his decree now includes the decree of the Court of first instance. The two decrees have merged into one decree and for the purposes of execution must be read together as constituting one and the same decree the Judge has power to amend, and he must, therefore, go into the application, examine the decrees of both the Courts and if there are any errors, he must amend them. I set aside the order of the Court below and remand the case to that Court with orders to re admit the application and to consider and decide it in view of the remarks made above.

3. As nobody appears to oppose this application in this Court, the applicant will have half his costs in this Court. The costs in the Court below will abide the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial