The appellant filed an appeal against an order dismissing his suit as withdrawn. The High Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction as the Court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction was the District Judge's court, not the High Court.
The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to take remedy before the appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~21
PAHLAD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.S. Rajput, Adv.
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R
% 17.02.2016
this Court but would be the Court of the concerned District Judge. 4. The appeal is thus disposed of with liberty to the appellant to take remedy available before the appropriate forum. 5. The Trial Court record requisitioned in this Court be returned forthwith.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2016 bs..
Page 2 of 2
RFA 643/2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and if the appeal is maintainable.
Whether the appeal filed under Section 96 CPC is maintainable when the Court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction is not the High Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PAHLAD
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
