TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1936 (7) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plaint the plaintiffs stated that ₹ 5,060-5-0 on account of principal, and ₹ 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 to any interest. On 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst 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 Counsel for the respondent has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence 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 the plaintiffs so far as int....