1936 (7) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 8,626-7.6. In para. 5 of the plaint the plaintiffs stated that Rs. 5,060-5-0 on account of principal, and Rs. 3,566-2-6 on account of interest, at the rate of six per cent per annum, were due to them. There were a number of pro forma defendants also but the suit was only contested by the firm Mathra Datt & Co. The contesting defendant pleaded, inter alia that the plaintiffs were not entitled....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 9th October an appeal against the note of the trial Court, dated 31st May 1935, and reproduced above, was filed in this Court. The grounds of appeal were on the same lines as the grounds for the petition for revision, and it was stated that a copy of the order appealed against as well as the vakalatnatna had been attached to the petition for revision which had already been filed. The learned Cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the note to which reference has been made does not give a right of appeal. If no appeal lies a revision would be the only remedy available to the plaintiffs. 3. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the note is in the nature of an interlocutory order, and therefore no revision is entertainable against such an order. In my opinion, the note decides the claim of....