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.

Sellan Vs. Vettiyan Parayan

Sellan vs Vettiyan Parayan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 25, 1926
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/817835

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
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sellan

Respondent

Vettiyan Parayan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1926Mad944a; 97Ind.Cas.895

Excerpt

- devadoss, j.1. this is an application to revise the order of the subordinate judge of salem in s.c.s. no. 247 of 1923. the learned subordinate judge refused to grant an adjournment at the request of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. the plaintiff was ready with his witnesses on several occasions before 21-1-24 when the suit came on for hearing. from the decree it appears that he paid subsistence allowance to the extent of rs. 23-4-0 and from the subpoenas now produced it is clear that he was ready on several occasions when the court adjourned the suit for want of time. the court could have granted some time in consideration of the fact that he was ready on previous occasions, to enable him to produce his witnesses.2. the practice of posting too many cases which could not by any possibility be disposed of in a, day is responsible for the impression in the minds of parties that their oases would not be taken upon the day in which they are posted. the plaintiff might have thought that the same would not be taken up on 21-1-24 to which it was adjourned seeing that on at least three or four previous' occasions the court adjourned it for want of time. i think, in the circumstances, the subordinate judge ought to have granted a few days time to enable the plaintiff to produce his witnesses. i therefore set aside the decree of the subordinate judge and direct him to restore the suit to file and dispose of it according to law. the petitioner is partly responsible for the lower court's order and therefore he is not entitled to the costs of this application.

Full Judgment

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in S.C.S. No. 247 of 1923. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to grant an adjournment at the request of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff was ready with his witnesses on several occasions before 21-1-24 when the suit came on for hearing. From the decree it appears that he paid subsistence allowance to the extent of Rs. 23-4-0 and from the subpoenas now produced it is clear that he was ready on several occasions when the Court adjourned the suit for want of time. The Court could have granted some time in consideration of the fact that he was ready on previous occasions, to enable him to produce his witnesses.

2. The practice of posting too many cases which could not by any possibility be disposed of in a, day is responsible for the impression in the minds of parties that their oases would not be taken upon the day in which they are posted. The plaintiff might have thought that the same would not be taken up on 21-1-24 to which it was adjourned seeing that on at least three or four previous' occasions the Court adjourned it for want of time. I think, in the circumstances, the Subordinate Judge ought to have granted a few days time to enable the plaintiff to produce his witnesses. I therefore set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to restore the suit to file and dispose of it according to law. The petitioner is partly responsible for the lower Court's order and therefore he is not entitled to the costs of this application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial