LAGADAPATI VENKATARANGABUSHANAM Vs. KARELLA RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 107 of the Government of India Act requesting the High Court to interfere with an order passed in execution proceedings by the Assistant Agent, Badrachelam, directing a warrant to issue for the execution of a decree which the petitioner maintains to have been satisfied. The petitioner first applied to the Court of the Agency Commissioner, but his appeal was returned with the endorsement that no appeal lay from the Assistant Agent's order. Under Rule XXIV of the Agency Rules, the petitioner might have preferred a petition to Government against the Agency Commissioner's order, and if he had done so, and if the Government thought fit, they would have referred the petition to this Court. Instead of adopting that course, he has invoked the High Court's extraordinary power of superintendence.

(2.) In my opinion, this is not a fit; case for our exercise of those powers for the following reasons. Rule VIII provides an appeal to the Court of the Agency Commissioner against the decree of an Assistant Commissioner. The order of an Assistant Commissioner in execution proceedings is not a decree. Sr Sri Sri Virkamadeo Maharajulam Garu V/s. Sri Neladevi Pattemadhadevi Garu 26 M. 266 and Lagadapati Venkatanagabushanam V/s. Ovilapati Mahalaxmi 42 Ind. Cas. 535 : 41 M. 325 : 34 M.L.J. 524 and there is no provision, in the Agency Rules for appeals against orders passed in execution or in miscellaneous proceedings, see the Rani of Tuni V/s. Maharaja of Jeypore 66 Ind. Cas. 115 : 16 L.W. 8 : 42 M.L.J. 487 : 30 M.L.T. 329 : (1922) M.W.N. 314 : (1922) A.I.R. (M). (sic). A remedy lies by way of potition under Rule XXIV against the order in execution of the Agency Commissioner. See Makaraja of Jeypors V/s. Sri Niladevi Pattmahadevi 27 M. 109 : 13 M.L.J. 151. In that case there actually was an appeal from the Assistant Agent's order to the Agent; but the decision is not an authority for the proposition that such an appeal lies. It may be that, when these Rules were drawn up; the Government intentionally omitted to provide a light of appeal against orders of Assistant Commissioners in order to avoid encouraging litigation among the unsophisticated Agency peoples. If it was an unintentional oversight, it might be remedied by moving the Agency Commissioner under Rule XXV to make a reference to the Government as being a case not provided for by the Rules. In Pedda Vikrama Deo Garu V/s. Maharaja of Jeypore 36 Ind. Cas. 801 : 4 L.W. 499 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 269 an opinion was expressed that the old Rule 31 (now Rule 24) was intended to provide for case for which no provision had been made, including orders against which no appeal was provided. It is unnecessary to say more, seeing that the petitioner before us has not adopted either of these courses. The Agency Commissioner was strictly correct in observing that no appeal lay to him, though it was unnecessary for him to return the appeal to the person presenting it.

(3.) Where the record of a case before the Court is so erroneous as to manifestly amount to an injustice, the Patna High Court in Brindaban Ckander Choubey V/s. Gour Chandra Ray 56 Ind. Cas. 155 : (1920) Pat. 56 : 1 P.L.T. 467 thought fit to exercise the powers of superintendence vested in them under Section 107 of the Government of India Act.