Chennai Court April 1895 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pethaperumal Chetty Vs. Murugandy Servaigaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ189
1. The Subordinate Judge, being of opinion that the dismissal of the plaintiff's (petitioner's) previous suit No. 115 of 1892 for non-production of a certificate of heirship was a dismissal under Section 158 Civil Procedure Code, has held that the plaintiff's present suit on the same cause of action is barred.2. The Subordinate Judge's decision is questioned on behalf of the plaintiff on two grounds.3. The first is that assuming for argument's sake that the dismissal was on account of the plaintiff's omission to produce a certificate, the case did not fall under Section 158 Civil Procedure Code.4. Now the rejection of a suit, to operate as a bar to the entertainment of a subsequent suit on the same cause of action, must rest either on a statutory prohibition similar to that contained in Section 103, Civil Procedure Code or on the principle of res judicata. But there is no specific provision in the code laying down that a dismissal under Section 158 shall be a bar to a second suit on th...
Pathaperumal Chetti Vs. Murugandi Servaigaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad466
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The Subordinate Judge, being of opinion that the dismissal of the plaintiff's (petitioner's) previous Suit No. 1158 of 1892 for non-production of a certificate of heirship was a dismissal under Section 158[1] Civil Procedure Code, has held that the plaintiff's present suit on the same cause of action is barred.2. The Subordinate Judge's decision is questioned on behalf of the plaintiff on two grounds:3. The first is that, assuming, for argument's sake, that the dismissal was on account of the plaintiff's omission to produce a certificate, the case did not fall under Section 158, Civil Procedure Code.4. Now the rejection of a suit to operate as a bar to the entertainment of a subsequent suit on the same cause of action must rest either on a statutory prohibition similar to that contained in Section 103, Civil Procedure Code, or on the principle of res judicata. But there is no specific provision in the Code laying down that a dismissal under Section 158 shall be a...
Raru Kutti Vs. Mamad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad480
1. This is an application to review the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 968 of 1894 on the ground of the discovery of new and important evidence. It is objected that the application cannot be entertained, inasmuch as the ground relied upon in the application for review could not be successfully relied on in the second appeal itself Jackammal v. Palneappa Chetti 5 M.H.C.R. 464.2. That decision was passed in 1870 under the old Procedure Code VIII of 1859, but the High Court of Calcutta took the same view and on the same grounds. See Bhyrub Nath Toee v. Kally Chunder Chowdhry 16 W.R. 112; Panchanan Mookerjee v. Radha Nath Mookerjee 4 B.L.R. App. Cases 213 also Ex parte Bashyagarlu Nayudu 1 M.H.C.R. 254.3. The decision in Pandu v. Devji I.L.R. 7 Bom. 287 was passed under the Procedure Code of 1877 which is identical with the present Code. It was pointed out that Section 3761of Act VIII of 1859 was practically similar to the present Section 623; but, as the second appeal was pen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›