Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ60
Abdur Rahim, J.1. With regard to the preliminary objection which has been raised here as to the value, all that I need say is that even if at be doubtful that the court has power to revise the order in this case under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the order being in the nature of an interlocutory order, there can be very little doubt that I have ample powers under Section 15 of the Charter Act. This has been held in Pusan Mal v. fenki Pershad Singh I.L.R. (1901) C. 680, Somasundaram Chettiar v. Manika Vasaka Desika Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi I.L.R. (1907) M. 60 and C.R.P. 363 of 1910 unreported.2. On the merits of the case I am satisfied that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to pass an order to strike out the defence of the petitioner. What happened was, the petitioner, who was examined as a witness by the plaintiff, did not attend on the day to which the case was adjourned, although he had given an undertaking to do so. The Subordinate Judge, there-upon, orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ155
ORDERSpencer, J.1. It is argued that the Presidency Magistrate had no power to dismiss a complaint under Section 203, Cr. P.C., without examining the complainant. It was held in Queen-Empress v. Murphy1 that a verification on oath of a complaint before a Magistrate was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 203 and this has been followed in Cr. Rev. C. 308 of 1908 on the file of this court with special reference to the procedure provided for Presidency Magistrates under Section 200(a). In the present case the petitioner's vakil was present when the Magistrate passed orders under Section 203, Cr. P.C., dismissing the complaint and in the absence of any affidavit saying that he was precluded from showing cause against accepting the result of the police enquiry, I am not prepared to find that the complainant was in any way prejudiced by the Magistrate's procedure assuming that the law required him to make a more detailed examination. At the most the omission to examine in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad606
ORDERSpencer, J.1. It is argued that the Presidency Magistrate had no power to dismiss a complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, without examining the complainant. It was held in Queen-Empress v. Murphy I.L.R. (1887) All. 666 that a verification on oath of a complaint; before a Magi strata, was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 203, and this has bean followed in Criminal Revision Case No. 398 of 1908 on the file of this Court with special reference to the procedure provided for Presidency Magistrates under Section 200 (b). In the present ease the petitioner's vakil was present when the Magistrate passed orders under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code, dismissing the complaint and in the absence of any affidavit saying that he was precluded from showing cause against accepting the result of the police enquiry, I am not prepared to find that the complainant was in any way prejudiced by 'the Magistrate's procedure, assuming that the law required him to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ62
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The suit was to obtain a decree directing the defendants to demolish at their cost the wall built by them on the plaintiff's wall and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's wall and also for damages, The District Munsif found that the defendants had cut away about two inches of the breadth of the plaintiff's parapet wall on the northern side between the points C and D in the commissioner's plan down to a certain depth and along a length of about 16 feet and built their parapet wall resting it to that extent on the rest of the plaintiff's parapet wall and on the main wall of the plaintiff's house on which the plaintiff's back wall stands. In accordance with that finding the Munsif granted an injunction directing the defendant to remove the wall to the extent of the encroachment and also restraining them from further interfering with the plaintiffs, wall in question. He also found that no actual damage had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ1052
1. The suit in this case was for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant causing his properties to be attached before judgment in a suit instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff (O.S. No. 6 of 1906 in the District Court of Coimbatore). The defendant along with his plaint (O.S. 6 of 1906) put in an application for attachment of all the properties of the plaintiff. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 6,000 on a pro-note executed by the plaintiff' in favour of defendant's brother. The properties attached were, according to the District Munsif's finding in this case, worth at least Rs. 60,000, and on the defendant's own admission their value was not less than Rs. 30,000. The defendant stated in support of his application for attachment that the plaintiff had alienated some of his properties and was about to alienate his other properties in order to defeat the execution of any decree the defendant might obtain against him.2. He obtained an interim order of attachmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad598
1. The suit in this ease was for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant causing his properties to be attached before judgment in a suit instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff (Original Suit No. 6 of 1906 in the: District Court of Coimbatore). The defendant along with his plaint in Original Suit No. 6 of 1906 put in an application for attachment of all the properties of the plaintiff. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 6,000 on a promissory note executed by the present plaintiff in favour of the defendant's brother. The properties attached were according to the District Munsifs finding in this case worth at least Rs. 60.000 and on the defendant's own admission their value was not less than Rs. 30,000. The defendant stated in support of his application for attachment that' the plaintiff had alienated some of his properties and was about to alienate his other properties in order to defeat the execution of any decree the defendant might obtain against him. He o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 12Ind.Cas.679; (1912)22MLJ35
Sundara Aiyar J.1. This second appeal arises in proceedings in execution of the decree of the District Munsif's Court of Cannanore for money in O.S. No. 591 of 1896. The present application for execution was presented on the 27th September, 1909. The decree was passed on the 15th January 1897. So this application was put in more than 12 years after the date of the decree. The judgment-debtors objected that the application was barred by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as more than 12 years had elapsed since the date of the decree and the decree-holder had made prior application for execution. The application immediately preceding the present one was presented on the nth January 1909 for attachment of the defendant's moveables and for their arrest. While that application was still pending, the present one was put in. In addition to the reliefs asked for in the previous application the plaintiff prayed also for the attachment of immoveable properties belonging to the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 12Ind.Cas.692; (1912)22MLJ190
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The appellant sought to obtain a refund of the amount deposited by him under orders of the lower appellate court, which directed that sale of the properly to which he laid claim in execution of a decree for arrears of maintenance obtained by the respondent against the second defendant in the suit should be stayed on his making the deposit. The appellant was the first defendant in the suit but there was no decree against him. He, however, purchased the property pending suit, and on the strength of that purchase objected to the attachment and it was in appeal from the order disallowing the objection that the amount which the appellant seeks to withdraw from court was deposited and execution stayed. The order of the court executing the decree was upheld and execution was allowed to proceed. When the property was ordered to be sold the appellant again objected and it was ultimately decided by the lower appellate court that a moiety of the property could be sold in executi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad670
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. The second appeal arises in proceedings in execution of the decree of the District Munsif's Court of Cannanore for money in Original Suit No. 591 of 1896. The present application for execution was presented on the 27th September, 1909. The decree was passed on the 15th-January, 1897. So this application was put in more than 12 years after the data of the decree. The judgment debtors objected that the application was barred by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as more than 12 years had elapsed since the date of the decree and the decree holder had made prior application for execution. The application immediately preceding the present one was preserved on the 11th January 1909, for attachment of the defendant's moveables and for their arrest. While that application was still pending the present one was pub in. In addition to the reliefs asked for in' the previous application the plaintiff prayed also for the attachment of immovable properties belonging to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ170
Abdur Rahim, J. 1. This appeal raises a question of some nicety with reference to the construction of Order XXI, Rule 2, corresponding to Section 258 of the old Civil Procedure Code, 1882.2. The 1st respondent applied for execution of a decree which he alleged had been assigned to his father by the original decree-holder. Objection is made to execution by the 2nd appellant, who is one of the judgment-debtors, on the ground that the assignment which is in the name of the 1st respondent's father was made under an arrangement by which the 1st respondent's father was to be a mere benamidar for the judgment-debtors, On the date of the assignment the amount due under the decree was Rs. 60,000, and the allegation of the judgment-debtors is that Rs. 15,000 out of this sum was actually paid to the original decree-holders, and that an assignment of the decree was obtained in the name of the 1st respondent's father on the understanding that he was to hold it for the appellants' benefit, the appel...
Tag this Judgment!