ANANTLAL HIRALAL MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE admitted facts of this case are that the two Appellants stood surety for one Meghraj, the treasurer in the Chhindwara District Treasury, for a sum of Rs. 5,000 promising to indemnify the Government on account of any default on the part of Meghraj. In 1954, a shortage of Rs. 2,990 was discovered in the remittance of a large sum of money from Chhindwara Treasury to the State Bank of India, at Seoni. The shortage was found due to the negligence of Treasurer Meghraj. Consequently the Deputy Commissioner started proceedings for the recovery of security money from the present Appellants. For a proper appreciation of the case the chronology of the proceedings may be mentioned as below:

(2.) A preliminary legal point was raised by the Learned Counsel for the State that from the chronology of the proceedings it would appear that the impugned order dated 18 -8 -56 was, in fact, an order rejecting finally the application dated 24 -9 -55 for review of the Deputy Commissioner's original order dated 16 -6 -1955. As such the present appeal is not tenable because no appeal can lie against" an order rejecting a review application. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, maintained that the present appeal was, in effect, directed against the original order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16 -6 -55. This contention loses its force from the fact that in the grounds of appeal the impugned order is referred to as one dated 18 -8 -56 and it is the copy of the same order that is appended with the memorandum of appeal. There can, therefore, be no denying the fact that the present appeal is directed against the order rejecting the Appellant's review application dated 24 -9 -55 and, therefore, no appeal can lie against the same.

(3.) ALL the above points were also raised before the lower Court and it is not really necessary to deal exhaustively with them here as I agree in substance with the view -point of the lower Court.