Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.29 seconds)

Ram Chand vs Pitam Mal And Anr. on 29 May, 1888

As regards the argument that in the case of a suit dismissed for default and restored in the course of the same day it would work hardship to hold that the attachment before judgment ceased to have force, it is difficut to see how that can be a hardship which the law commands. There is much that might be said on the other side as to the consequences of holding that an attachment continues in force after a suit is dismissed. As was pointed out by Mahmood, J. in Ram Chand v. Pitam Mal (1888) I.L.R. 10 All. 506, such an attachment will subsist for ever whether there is or not an appeal until it is expressly withdrawn. As stated above the reference before us does not deal with a suit dismissed for default and restored to file but with one where the decree dismissing the suit is reversed on appeal. To say that on a suit being decreed in appeal all the interlocutory orders passed in the course of the suit are at once revived appears to be going too far and might lead to serious difficulties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Saranatha Aiyangar vs Muthiah Mooppanar And Ors. on 5 May, 1933

In a later case, namely, Saranatha Aiyangar v. Muthiah Mooppanar (1933) 65 M.L.J. 844 our learned brother Ramesam, J., sitting alone held that, in the case of a suit dismissed for default and soon afterwards restored to file, in the absence of anything expressly appearing against the view, that interlocutory applications were restored, the suit and all incidental matters were restored to file.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1