Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing E.T. Dharma Raja vs K.M. Pethu Raja And Ors. on 16 March, 1923

Durairaj vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 2 November, 2022

9. Let us begin with the old decision of out High Court in E.T.Dharma Raja Vs. K.M.Pethur Raja and Others reported in AIR 1924 Madras 79, wherein the plaintiff had obtained decree against the defendants against which, only one defendant had filed an appeal, while the rest of them did not challenge that decree and at the appellate stage, 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.53 of 2023 the plaintiff/respondent wanted to withdraw the suit against the appealed defendant, so that the decree which had already been passed against the other defendants who had not appealed may be enjoyed by him, this Court while rejecting the petitioner filed under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C., has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayarama Kounder (Died) vs Ganesan on 3 February, 2011

"14. From Bombay, we may travel to Madras and refer to the decision of that High Court in Dharma Raja v. K.M.Pethur Raja, AIR 1924 Mad. 79: ILR 46 Mad 811. In this case, the plaintiff had obtained a decree against the defendant against which only one of the defendants had filed an appeal while the rest of them did not challenge that decree. At the appellate stage, the plaintiff-respondent wanted to withdraw the suit against the appealing defendant so that the decree which had already been passed against other defendants who had not appealed, may be enjoyed by him. The High Court while rejecting the application of the plaintiff for withdrawal under Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C. observed as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Dhanushnaidu vs G.Marichamy on 13 December, 2023

“9. Let us beging with the old decision of our High Court in E.T.Dharma Raja Vs. K.M.Pethur Raja and Others reported in AIR 1924 Madras 79, wherein the plaintiff had obtained decree against the defendants against which, only one defendant had filed an appeal, while the rest of them did not challenge that decree and at the appellate stage, the plaintiff/respondent wanted to withdraw the suit against the appealed defendant, so that the decree which had already been passed against the other defendants who had not appealed may be enjoyed by him, this Court while rejecting the petitioner filed under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C., has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1