Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)
Kaliakkal vs Palani Koundan And Anr. on 15 October, 1925 cites

A. Balasubramania Chetti And Ors. vs Swarnammal And Anr. on 26 February, 1913

In Balasubramania Chetti v. Swarnammal (1913) I.L.R. 38 Mad 199 : 25 M.L.J. 367 Benson and Sundara Aiyar, JJ. held that Order 2, Rule 2 did not apply to execution proceedings. They observe at page 201: " It could not have been the intention of the Legislature to apply to execution proceedings provisions laid down with regard to suits only. The procedure to be followed in appeals and execution applications is specifically laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. Section 141 is intended to apply to other proceedings in Civil Courts, such as probate, etc."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Subbiah Naicker vs Ramanathan Chettiar on 22 January, 1914

In Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar (1914) I.L.R. 37 Mad 462 : 26 M.L.J. 189 , Ayling and Sadasiva Aiyar, JJ. were of opinion that Order 9, Rule 13 applied to execution proceedings. The point did not directly arise in that case, but the learned Judges held " Orders in execution which come under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, are decrees as defined in Section 2 of the Code and hence ex parte orders passed in execution are ex parte decrees, and Order 9, Rule 13 provides generally for the setting aside of ex parte decrees and not only for the setting aside of those classes of ex parte decrees which are not also orders passed under Section 47 in execution proceedings."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

V.C.T.N. Chidambaram Chetti vs Theivanai Ammal on 6 April, 1923

In Chidambaram Chetti v. Theivanai Ammal (1923) I.L.R. 46M. 768; 45 M.L.J. 346 (F B) the point was not decided, though Oldfield, J. in his referring order refers to the conflicting authorities on the point. The learned Chief Justice observed at page 780: " I desire to say that our decision in this case must be taken to be confined to the particular facts of this case, that is to say, that where you have nothing more than the non-attendance at the hearing of an application to settle the terms of a sale proclamation, the respondent cannot be taken to be estopped by reason of that non-attendance on the principle of res judicata from thereafter denying the liability of the property to execution."
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1