Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    Emperor v. Kali Charan

    Banerji, J.:— This is an application for the revision of an order made by a Magistrate of the first class. The applicant could have applied for revision to the Sessions Judge.

    2. It is not the practice of this Court under ordinary circumstances, to entertain an application for revision where another Court has concurrent jurisdiction with this Court, unless a previous application has been made to the lower Oourt. See Matai Lal v. Anant Ram (Weekly Notes, 1890, p. 164). As no application was made to the Sessions Judge in this case, I decline to entertain the present application.

    [Cf. also Empress v. Phul Koeri (Weekly Notes, 1887, p. 106), Queen-Empress v. Janki Prasad (Weekly Notes, 1888, p. 132) and Queen Empress v. Reolah (I.L.R, 14 Calc., 887.)—ED.]

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Emperor v. Kali Charan
    (Aug 29, 1904)