Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Section 26 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chunna Mal vs Bhagwant Kishore on 11 May, 1936
A reference may be made to the case of Chunna Mal v. Bhagwant Kishore, AIR 1936 All 584 (FB) (C) and Gupteshwar Mis-sir v. Chaturanand Misir, AIR 1950 Pat 309 (D).
Chidambaram, Minor Represented By His ... vs Nataraja Mudaliar And Ors. on 11 January, 1938
In Chidambaram v. Nataraja Mudaliar AIR 1939 Mad 80 (F), an applicant who had made an application to sue in forma pauperis made a prayer for an order for the appointment of a commissioner for taking an inventory of certain properties. The prayer for appointment of a commissioner was objected on the ground that the right to apply for the appointment of a commissioner arises under Order 39, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, which could be applicable only if there was already a suit pending and it was contended that inasmuch as the application to sue in forma pauperis had not been granted, there was no suit pending.
Totaram Ichharam Wani vs Dattu Mangu Wani on 28 August, 1942
In Totaram Ichharam v. Dattu Mangu, AIR 1943 Bom 143 (G), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court took the same view.
Thimmayya vs M.B. Sadasivappa And Anr. on 26 February, 1952
In Thimmayya v. Sadasivappa, AIR 1952 Mys 76 (I) also it was held that the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not apply as there was no suit but only an application for leave to sue as a pauper. No reason has been given apart from following a decision of that court in 11 Mys CCR 90 (J), for taking that view. In this case also S. 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been overlooked. With due respect to the Judges who decided those cases, I am unable to agree with their view.
Purna Chandra Chabri And Anr. vs Tara Prosad Maiti on 18 August, 1916
In 25 Cal LJ 159 : (AIR 1917 Cal 852) (H), referred to above, during the pendency of an application to sue as a pauper an application was made for attachment before judgment. It was held that the prayer for such attachment could not be granted inasmuch as there was no suit pending until the application to sue in forma pauperis was granted. The provisions of S. 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not at all considered in that case for deciding the question about the commencement of the suit.
1