Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs A.K. Parthasarthi And Ors on 3 April, 2003
AIR 2003 SC 3527 (B.Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. A.K.Parthasarathi and others) and
2005(4) CTC 451 (T.Kalyanasundaram Vs. M.S.Arumuganayakar).
T. Kalyanasundaram vs M.S. Arumuganayakar on 3 August, 2005
AIR 2003 SC 3527 (B.Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. A.K.Parthasarathi and others) and
2005(4) CTC 451 (T.Kalyanasundaram Vs. M.S.Arumuganayakar).
B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs A.K. Parthasarathi And Ors. on 24 June, 2002
18.In a decision in (Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. Parthasarathi) reported in
2003(2)CTC 242, the Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Order 17 Rule 2 as
"The Trial Court in this case had no jurisdiction to pass a decree on merits and
it ought to have disposed of the suit only in terms of Order 17 Rule 2 without
the aid of the Explanation to the said sub rule. In the light of our decision,
namely, the decree dated 13.10.2003 would only be an ex parte decree and not a
decree on merits, we have no other go except to hold that the application under
Order 9 Rule 13 filed by the defendant is maintainable."
1