Gadicherla China Seetayya Vs. Gadicherla Seetayya

Gadicherla China Seetayya vs Gadicherla Seetayya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 15, 1897

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/788134

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/788134
Court: Chennai
Judge: Benson and ; Boddam, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 15, 1897
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code - Act XIV of 1882, Section 244 (c)--Party to the suit. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gadicherla China Seetayya

Respondent

Gadicherla Seetayya

Legal References

Cases Referred: Mukarrab Husain v. Hurmatunnissa I.L.R.
Reported In: (1898)ILR21Mad45

Excerpt

civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 244 (c)--party to the suit. - 1. we think the subordinate judge was wrong in holding that the defendant who had been exonerated from the suit was a party within the meaning of section 244 (c) of the civil procedure code, and, therefore, that the plaintiff could not bring a separate suit against him, but was bound to proceed in execution [see mukarrab husain v. hurmatunnissa i.l.r. 18 all. 52.2. the fact that the plaintiff's claim arises out of expenses incurred in the course of executing the decree makes no difference. we express no opinion as to the merits of the plaintiff's claim. we, therefore, reverse the decision of the subordinate judge and direct him to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it according to law.3. the respondent must pay the appellant's costs.

Full Judgment

1. We think the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the defendant who had been exonerated from the suit was a party within the meaning of Section 244 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, and, therefore, that the plaintiff could not bring a separate suit against him, but was bound to proceed in execution [see Mukarrab Husain v. Hurmatunnissa I.L.R. 18 All. 52.

2. The fact that the plaintiff's claim arises out of expenses incurred in the course of executing the decree makes no difference. We express no opinion as to the merits of the plaintiff's claim. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it according to law.

3. The respondent must pay the appellant's costs.

Same Parties Gadicherla China Seetayya vs Gadicherla Seetayya Same Subject Civil Same Judge Benson and ; Boddam, JJ.

Civil