9911796707
TMI Blog1884 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scope to the decision--Mahima Chunder Mojoomdar v. Asradka Dassia 21 Cal. W.R. 207, C.R.; Nobo Doorga Dosse v. Fyz Buksh Chowdhry 24 Cal. W.R. 403; Krishna Behari Boy v. Brojishwarij Chowdranee L.R. 2 IndAp 283. 2. But in this instance the earlier decision was in a cause of less than ₹ 500 in amount, and for this reason a special or second appeal made by the plaintiff was dismissed as not cognizable by this Court. The present suit is for more than ₹ 500, and the contention is that the previous decisions on the right to enhance, having been merely incidental, is not binding in this or any subsequent litigation. On the other hand, it is urged that the former decision on the right to enhance having been given by a Court compete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision which was statutably beneath the cognizance of the High Court, binds the High Court in a more important case. Such a result is manifestly opposed to reason, and cannot, we think, have been intended by the Legislature-Run Bahadur Singh v. Luchokooer I.L.R. 6 Cal. 406 compd. with Section 13, Civ. P. Code as amended by Act XIV of 1882 But if the prior judgment in a case too petty for appeal is not to bind the High Court, neither can it bind the Subordinate Courts, whose judgments are subject to appeal to the High Court. And this must be so equally in a case which on account of its small valuation is not subject to appeal as in one subject to appeal to the High Court, since it is impossible that the prior decision should or should no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far been precisely formulated either by the Legislature or by the Courts. 4. In the case before us the former decision could not be appealed against to the High Court, and thus, though the Court, which gave that decision, was in one sense competent to try the subsequent suit and did try it, yet it was not competent to try the subsequent suit with final effect as it had tried the earlier one. Though the Court was the same physically, yet it had not on the two occasions an identical jurisdiction. Moreover, for the purpose of establishing a prior decision as res judicata, we must look to the whole series of possible proceedings up to the highest available ordinary tribunal; otherwise, as we have seen, the anomaly must arise of the highest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the amount at take being insignificant, and the unappealable decision arrived at in such, a petty case is final in the requisite sense only as to the precise point of liability distinctly adjudicated. In ordinary cases the authority of res judicata extends back to the several elements of fact and law of which an adjudication is composed See per Mellish L.J. 9 Ch.A. 25 but in the case of a Court of summary jurisdiction a different principle operates. Such a Court, for the purpose of deciding a question within its final cognizance, may have to form an opinion on a point not within its cognizance or not with its final cognizance. The opinion it forms on such point is to be regarded rather as ancillary or subjective than as an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
