AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 133 wordsCunningham, J.—We think that the Magistrate, having, on the 25th August 1881, set aside his order of June 7th, 1881, and struck the case off the file, had no power to revive it (without a fresh proceeding) by his order of 6th September, and that he had no power, u/s 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to pass a perpetual injunction: see Gopi Mohun Mullick v. Taramoni Chowdrani ILR 5 Cal. 7. Orders u/s 518 not being judicial proceedings, we have no power to deal with the present case u/s 297; but we infer from the judgment in In the matter of the Petition of Chunder Nath Sen I.L.R., 2 Cal., 293 that the order being, in our opinion, illegal, we can deal with it under the Charter. We, therefore, set it aside.