Chennai Court October 1889 Judgments

Muthayan Chetti Vs. Narasuvier

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1896)6MLJ46

Shephard, J.1. I am of opinion that the order of the Subordinate Judge was not open to appeal. There is no provision in the Code justifying an appeal against an order passed under Section 206 and no case is cited in which an appeal has been allowed. The question then is whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Section 622. On that question the cases in Jivraji v. Pragji I.L.R. (1886) M. 51 Raghunath Das v. Rajkumar I.L.R. (1884) All 276 Surta v. Ganga I.L.R. (1885) All. 411. were cited. All that is decided in the Madras case is that in the particular circumstances the party was not entitled to appeal to the provisions of Section 622. It was not held that an order passed under Section 206 will under no circumstances constitute a case for interference under section 622. In the Allahabad cases there was difference of opinion between the learned judges, Old field J. holding that the party aggrieved by the amendment of a decree should appeal against the decree as amended, Mahmood ...