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
3 paragraphs · 157 wordsWaller, J.—A preliminary objection is taken that the High Court should not interfere u/s 115 of the CPC in a case of this kind. That was the view taken by Phillips, J., in Acha v. Sankaran 95 Ind. Cas. 424 : (1926) M.W.N. 444 : 50 M.L.J. 497 : 23 L.W. 752; AIR 1926 Mad. 768. No doubt, other Judges of this Court have taken a different view, but, with all respect, I prefer to follow Phillips, J. Petitioner has other remedies open to him and it is, I think, no answer to say that the appropriate remedy is more cumbrous than that he seeks to obtain by way of revision.
Assuming that I can interfere in such a matter in revision, I am unable to sea how any question of jurisdiction arises.
The lower Court may be wrong, but it had jurisdiction to pass the order it did. The petition is dismissed with costs.