Mallikarjuna and ors. Vs. Pathaneni

Mallikarjuna and ors. vs Pathaneni

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 28, 1896

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787833

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/787833
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Benson, J.
Decided On: Aug 28, 1896
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code, Sections 562, 569, 578 - Order of Remand--Irregularity affecting the merits. - - If we were satisfied that the District Judge did himself consider the evidence and did himself arrive at findings thereon, we should be inclined to hold that, under Section 578, Civil Procedure Code, the order of...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mallikarjuna and ors.

Respondent

Pathaneni

Legal References

Cases Referred: Subba Sastri v. Balachandra Sastri I.L.R.
Reported In: (1896)ILR19Mad479

Excerpt

civil procedure code, sections 562, 569, 578 - order of remand--irregularity affecting the merits. - - if we were satisfied that the district judge did himself consider the evidence and did himself arrive at findings thereon, we should be inclined to hold that, under section 578, civil procedure code, the order of remand and the call for revised findings was merely an irregularity of procedure not affecting the merits and not, therefore, such as to require or to justify us in now remanding the case......evidence was required, he might have called on the district munsif to record it and certify it, or he might have himself admitted it, and he might then have considered it also before arriving at a finding on the issues. subba sastri v. balachandra sastri i.l.r. 18 mad. 421.2. we have considered how far the provisions of section 578, civil procedure code, should effect our procedure in this case. if we were satisfied that the district judge did himself consider the evidence and did himself arrive at findings thereon, we should be inclined to hold that, under section 578, civil procedure code, the order of remand and the call for revised findings was merely an irregularity of procedure not affecting the merits and not, therefore, such as to require or to justify us in now remanding the case.3. we, however, observe that in the present case the district judge does not appear to have brought his mind to bear on the question whether the evidence did or did not justify the findings. he did not even state that he accepted them. he merely observed that no objection was taken to them, and that on those findings the decree of the lower court must be reversed. it may, perhaps, be that, if the district judge had himself considered the evidence, he would have arrived at a different conclusion.4. the irregularity was, therefore, one which may perhaps have affected the merits of the case.5. this being so, we shall follow the procedure adopted in the authority already referred to, and setting aside the decree of the district judge, we remand the suit to him for disposal according to law.6. costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that the order of remand was ultra vires and illegal, since the District Munsif had decided the case on the merits, not on a preliminary point. The proper course was for the District Judge to have himself admitted Exhibit B and to have considered its effect along with the other evidence in the case and to have then arrived at findings on the material issues. If further evidence was required, he might have called on the District Munsif to record it and certify it, or he might have himself admitted it, and he might then have considered it also before arriving at a finding on the issues. Subba Sastri v. Balachandra Sastri I.L.R. 18 Mad. 421.

2. We have considered how far the provisions of Section 578, Civil Procedure Code, should effect our procedure in this case. If we were satisfied that the District Judge did himself consider the evidence and did himself arrive at findings thereon, we should be inclined to hold that, under Section 578, Civil Procedure Code, the order of remand and the call for revised findings was merely an irregularity of procedure not affecting the merits and not, therefore, such as to require or to justify us in now remanding the case.

3. We, however, observe that in the present case the District Judge does not appear to have brought his mind to bear on the question whether the evidence did or did not justify the findings. He did not even state that he accepted them. He merely observed that no objection was taken to them, and that on those findings the decree of the lower Court must be reversed. It may, perhaps, be that, if the District Judge had himself considered the evidence, he would have arrived at a different conclusion.

4. The irregularity was, therefore, one which may perhaps have affected the merits of the case.

5. This being so, we shall follow the procedure adopted in the authority already referred to, and setting aside the decree of the District Judge, we remand the suit to him for disposal according to law.

6. Costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.

Same Parties Mallikarjuna and ors. vs Pathaneni Same Subject Civil Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Benson, J.

Civil