Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Subbarayadu Vs. Chenchuramayya

Subbarayadu vs Chenchuramayya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 11, 1900
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784782

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code - Act XIV of 1882 Section 162--Summons forms Nos. 125, 126--Summons to witness--Postponement of hearing of case--Necessity for issuing fresh summons--Practice. - - Section 16 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses bein...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbarayadu

Respondent

Chenchuramayya

Legal References

Reported In
(1901)ILR24Mad200

Excerpt

civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882 section 162--summons forms nos. 125, 126--summons to witness--postponement of hearing of case--necessity for issuing fresh summons--practice. - - section 16 3 of the code of civil procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses being detained beyond one day has not been overlooked.1. we are told that the practice is, if a case is not reached on a given day, for fresh summons to witnesses to be required. this is altogether a mistake. section 16 3 of the code of civil procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses being detained beyond one day has not been overlooked. the proper course was to warn the witnesses on the 10th that they would be required to appear on the 17th [see proceedings of the madras high court dated 18th january 1870 m.h.c.r. appx 15 and other cases cited in mayne's 'criminal law', page 85.]2. we must reverse the decree and remand the case. costs will abide the result.

Full Judgment

1. We are told that the practice is, if a case is not reached on a given day, for fresh summons to witnesses to be required. This is altogether a mistake. Section 16 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses being detained beyond one day has not been overlooked. The proper course was to warn the witnesses on the 10th that they would be required to appear on the 17th [see Proceedings of the Madras High Court dated 18th January 1870 M.H.C.R. Appx 15 and other cases cited in Mayne's 'Criminal Law', page 85.]

2. We must reverse the decree and remand the case. Costs will abide the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial