Sengotha and anr. Vs. Ramasami

Sengotha and anr. vs Ramasami

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 19, 1883

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787628

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/787628
Court: Chennai
Judge: Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Hutchins, J.
Decided On: Oct 19, 1883
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code, Section 499. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sengotha and anr.

Respondent

Ramasami

Legal References

Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad241

Excerpt

civil procedure code, section 499. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. an application for an order under section 499 can only be made by a plaintiff after the summons has been served and after reasonable notice of the intention to apply for the order has been given in writing to the defendant. the term 'may' must be read with the words 'at any time,' and does not import that it is competent to a plaintiff to apply before service of summons, or to evade the condition of notice.2. in this case the order was applied for on the 10th july and made on the 11th ex parte without notice to the defendant and without any proof to support it, while the summons was not served till the 25th july. the order under section 499 is discharged with costs.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. An application for an order under Section 499 can only be made by a plaintiff after the summons has been served and after reasonable notice of the intention to apply for the order has been given in writing to the defendant. The term 'may' must be read with the words 'at any time,' and does not import that it is competent to a plaintiff to apply before service of summons, or to evade the condition of notice.

2. In this case the order was applied for on the 10th July and made on the 11th ex parte without notice to the defendant and without any proof to support it, while the summons was not served till the 25th July. The order under Section 499 is discharged with costs.

Same Parties Sengotha and anr. vs Ramasami Same Subject Civil Same Judge Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Hutchins, J.

Civil