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
7 paragraphs · 161 wordsThe preliminary objection is taken that the appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge lies to the District Court and not to the High Court.
There is ample authority in support of this objection Sitharama v. Vythilinga 12 M. 472; Vaikunta Prabhu v. Moidin Saheb 15 M. 89; Debi Prasad
v. Jamna Das 23 A. 56 and Manikshah Sorabji v. Dadabhai Jamshetji 27 B. 604 and we agree with these decisions. The only case relied upon by
the other side is Venkatrayer v. Jamhoo Ayyan 17 M. 377. In this decision, no reference is made to Sitharama v. Vythilinga 12 M. 472 or to
Vaikunta Prabhu v. Moideen Saheb 15 M. 89; and we are unable to follow it in reading into Section 589 of the CPC words which are not there.
We therefore, allow the preliminary objection. The memorandum of appeal is returned for presentation to the proper Court. In the circumstances,
each party to bear own costs.