Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Sri Tankala Appalaswamy Gari Samba ... vs Gopasundara Sabatho on 22 December, 1961 cites

Alagasundaram Pillai vs Pichuvier, Minor, By Court Guardian Mr. ... on 1 May, 1929

4. The learned District Munsif has relied on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Alagasundaram Pillai v. Pichuvier, ILR 52 Mad 899 : 57 Mad LJ 381 : (AIR 1929 Mad 757) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshardeo v. Eadhakissen, for holding that the E. P. which was dismissed, could not be restored under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code when the dismissal was due to a mistake other than one committed by the Court itself. The learned District Munsif dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no mistake committed by the Executing Court, but that there was a mistake committed by the plaintiff in not paying the batta, as ordered by the Court. After framing the question, the learned District Munsif proceeded to state as follows: -
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Subbiah Naicker vs Ramanathan Chettiar on 22 January, 1914

To a similar effect are the decisions in Kaliakkal v. Palani Koundan, 50 Mad LJ 200 : (AIR 1926 Mad 412) and Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar, 26 Mad LJ 189 : (AIR 1914 Mad 162) wherein it was held that Order 9 did not apply to proceedings in execution except such as involve the determination of any question under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code, in which case the orders thereon would amount to decrees.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Arunachalam, Minor, By Mother And ... vs P.K.A.C.T. Veerappa Chettiar Through ... on 9 March, 1931

"The case appears to be one of great hardship and suggests that a case has been made out for an amendment to Rule 15 of Order 9, Civil Procedure Code so that a Court may in suitable circumstances set aside an order of dismissal of an execution petition passed for default of appearance. After this Court had held in Arunachalam v. Veerappa Chettiar, 61 Mad LJ 348 : (AIR 1931 Mad 656) (FB) that Order 9 did not apply to execution proceedings, Rule 15 was inserted in order to make the order applicable in execution proceedings so far as the judgment-debtors are concerned in cases analogous to those dealt with in "Rules 6, 13 and 14. Rule 9 applies to the dismissal of a suit for the default on the part of the plaintiff and at the moment we can see no room why this rule should not be made to apply to the dismissal of an application for execution for default. Of course, where by default an execution petition is dismissed and the period of limitation has not expired, the decree-holder can file a fresh application; but where the application has been dismissed for default and the decree-holder cannot then file a fresh application by reason of the law of limitation, there should be some provision of law which allows him to get the order of dismissal set aside if he can show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing."
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kaliakkal vs Palani Koundan And Anr. on 15 October, 1925

To a similar effect are the decisions in Kaliakkal v. Palani Koundan, 50 Mad LJ 200 : (AIR 1926 Mad 412) and Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar, 26 Mad LJ 189 : (AIR 1914 Mad 162) wherein it was held that Order 9 did not apply to proceedings in execution except such as involve the determination of any question under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code, in which case the orders thereon would amount to decrees.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

(Vemareddi) Ramaraghavareddi And Ors. vs Raja Of Venkatagiri on 27 October, 1926

In Ramaraghavareddi v. Rajah of Venkatagiri, 52 Mad LJ 123 : (AIR 1927 Mad 355) it was held that the mere fact that the Code contained no express provision for restoring an execution petition dismissed for default would not by itself warrant the invocation of Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. Jackson, J., suggested that if the Court would simply strike off such cases, to be restored if necessary on the appearance of the party, there would be no trouble at all.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Siva Subramania Chettiar, Minor By ... vs Adaikkalam Chettiar And Ors. on 10 December, 1943

In Siva Subramania Chettiar v. Adaikkalam Chettiar, 1944-1 Mad LJ 259 : (ATR 1944 Mad 293) the relevant facts were as follows:-On 4-4-1941, the next friend of the minor decree-holder was absent from Court and the execution potition was dismissed for default. On 18-4-1941, the next friend of the minor, being the natural father of the minor, whose adoptive father was dead, applied for a review of the order of dismissal. The District Judge granted the application, not as one falling within Order 47, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code but because he felt that the dismissal of the execution application would work great hardship, as it was too late to file a fresh one, and consequently it was a case in which the Court should invoke the inherent powers recognised by Section 151. Two, out of the three, judgment-debtors, filed appeals which were heard and allowed by Horwill, J. Then, the appellants filed Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 and they came up for hearing before Leach, C. J., and Kunhi Raman, J. The learned Judges held that neither the minor's pleader nor his next friend was present when the execution petition was called on 4-4-1941 and that the E. P. was rightly dismissed, as several decisions of the Madras High Court showed that an application for review did not lie and that there was no scope for the exercise of the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judges pointed out the desirability of amending Order 9, Rule 15, Civil Procedure Code and observed thus:- (at page 261) .
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1