Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Section 6 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Radha Pershad Singh And Anr. vs Phuljuri Koer And Anr. on 3 July, 1885
In Radha Pershad Singh v. Phuljuri Koer, I. L. R., 12 C, 404, the same question was considered by a Divisional Bench of the High Court at Calcutta with reference to an. application for execution against a surety in respect of costs awarded by the Privy Council, and the learned judges who decided that case concurred in the opinion of the dissenting judges in the Allahabad case. The effect of similar words used in Section 583, was considered by Divisional Benches of the High Courts at Bombay and at Madras in the cases reported at I. L. R., 12 B, 4.11, Venkapa N'aik v. Baslingapn, and I. L. R., 13 M, 1, and the judges who decided those cases agreed with the majority of the Allahabad High Court. All these decisions had been passed except the one reported at I. L. E., 13 M, 1, before the amendment was introduced, and though Section 610 was amended, Section 583 was not similarly amended. The amendment was apparently made with reference to the conflict of opinion between the High Courts at Allahabad and Calcutta, and the insertion of the words, 'in so far as the order awards costs to the respondent' becomes significant, when it is remembered that the majority of the judges of the High Court at Allahabad held that the whole order, whether it related to costs or the decretal amount, might be enforced against the surety in execution. It is clear, therefore, that the amendment contemplated a distinction between the order as to costs and the other orders and declared that the surety might be proceeded against in respect of the former, implying thereby that but for the amendment, Section 253 should not be treated as incorporated with Section 610, by the general words, "according to the rules applicable to the execution of original decrees."
1