High CourtsSingle Bench

Vasudeva Shanabhag vs Damodhara Shanabhag

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 February 1928 · Citation: 110 Ind. Cas. 113

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devadoss, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Madras Village Courts Act, 1889 — Section 73
Ask AI about this case

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

13 paragraphs · 312 words

Devadoss, J.

This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Udipi declining to entertain an application u/s 73 of the Madras Village Courts

Act I of 1889. The District Munsif is not right in declining to interfere with the order of the Panchayat Court on the ground that the petitioner could

have made the application earlier stage as he had been aware of the ill-feeling existing between him and some of the pamhayatdurs. The District

Mansif was not right in dismissing the application on that ground for under a. 73 it is open to a party deeming himself aggrieved by any decree or

order of a Panchayat Court to move the District Munsif for setting aside such order on the ground of corruption, gross partiality or misconduct

etc., of the Village Court within sixty days from the date of the decree. Even though a party was aware, at the time the trial went on, of the fact that

the Panchayat Court waa grossly partial to him or corrupt, it is not incumbent upoa him to rush to the Muasif and ask for interference before a

decree is passed. The law gives him the right to apply to the District Munsif within sixty days after the passing of the decree or order which he

wants to get set aside. The order of the District Munsif is, therefore, not warranted by the provisions of Section 73. The question is whether I

should interfere with the order which is not quite legal. As this application is u/s 115 of the Coda of Civil Procedure and as the Panchayat Court

seems to have written a long judgment giving reasons for its conclusions, this Gourt is not called upon to interfere with that appears to be a proper

judgment. On these grounds, I dismiss the petition but in the circumstances without costs.