KESHARDEO CHAMRIA versus RADHA KISSEN CHAMHIA AND OTHERS

KESHARDEO CHAMRIA versus RADHA KISSEN CHAMHIA AND OTHERS

The Subordinate Judge’s order restoring the execution case under s.151 CPC was within his jurisdiction and free from material irregularity. The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision under s.115 CPC as the order was not appealable and did not breach procedure or law. Subsequent orders based on High Court’s remand were null and void; the original restoration order stands.

Parties
Appellant: Keshardeo Chamria; Respondents: Radha Kissen Chamria and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 October 1952
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Cross Appeals From Decision of High Court at Calcutta
Outcome
Appeal No. 12 allowed; Appeal No. 13 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Execution Proceedings, Revisional Powers, Appeal From Orders, Restoration of Execution Case, Inherent Powers
Civil Procedure Execution Proceedings Revisional Powers Appeal From Orders Restoration of Execution Case Inherent Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keshardeo Chamria

Appellant

Radha Kissen Chamria and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Cross Appeals From Decision of High Court at Calcutta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether order dismissing execution case without opportunity to pleader was valid
  2. 2 Whether restoration of execution case under s.151 CPC is appealable
  3. 3 Scope of High Court revisional jurisdiction under s.115 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The Subordinate Judge’s order restoring the execution case under s.151 CPC was within his jurisdiction and free from material irregularity. The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision under s.115 CPC as the order was not appealable and did not breach procedure or law. Subsequent orders based on High Court’s remand were null and void; the original restoration order stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal No. 12 allowed; Appeal No. 13 dismissed.

Orders

  • The interlocutory remand order of the High Court was without jurisdiction and is set aside.
  • The subsequent proceedings taken in consequence of the remand order, including the order of Subordinate Judge restoring execution to the extent of Rs. 92,000, and further High Court orders on appeal restoring execution on terms, are null and void and are set aside.