Skip to content


Muthu K.R.N. Muthia Chettiar Vs. M.B.P.R.E.S.P. Ekappa Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad598; (1927)52MLJ597
AppellantMuthu K.R.N. Muthia Chettiar
RespondentM.B.P.R.E.S.P. Ekappa Chettiar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....civil procedure code and section 107 of the government of india act.for revising the order of the district munsif of devakottah dated 24th january, 1925. this order is an order granting time to the respondents' sureties to produce the judgment-debtor on 2nd february, 1925. the petitioner before me who is the decree-holder impeaches the correctness of the district munsif's order. for the following reasons i think it is unnecessary for me to express any opinion as to whether this order is correct 6r not. if i come to a conclusion that the order is erroneous, it is merely giving my opinion on a question of law because the respondent had the benefit of the extension of time and the disposal of the civil revision petition comes before me two years after the extension of time, and the setting.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition under S.I 15 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act.for revising the order of the District Munsif of Devakottah dated 24th January, 1925. This order is an order granting time to the respondents' sureties to produce the judgment-debtor on 2nd February, 1925. The petitioner before me who is the decree-holder impeaches the correctness of the District Munsif's order. For the following reasons I think it is unnecessary for me to express any opinion as to whether this order is correct 6r not. If I come to a conclusion that the order is erroneous, it is merely giving my opinion on a question of law because the respondent had the benefit of the extension of time and the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition comes before me two years after the extension of time, and the setting aside of the order of the Lower Court is meaningless except for an indirect purpose. It will have a bearing on the question whether the execution-creditor can seek to execute his decrees against the sureties and whether the sureties are discharged by reason of the extension, that is, the question of law raised before me is really important for the further execution proceedings rather than for the order itself. If so, it is for the District Munsif's Court to consider the effect of this order in the further proceedings sought in the execution petition. If any party is dissatisfied by the order on the execution petition, that party can appeal to the District Court under Section 47 and may come up to the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and the validity of the present order of 24th January and its effect whether it is valid or invalid could appropriately be considered then. So far as I can see, the question of the liability of the sureties and whether they should be considered as discharged is still pending before the District Munsif. From the B Diary I find that this question was raised on the 15th January. He then adjourned it along with the question of extending time to 22nd January:

The question of their liability for not producing the judgment-debtor to-day has to be considered and the E.P. is adjourned to 22nd January for that purpose along with the petition presented to-day--15th January, 1924.

2. This order was passed by the District Munsif on 15th January, 1925. On 22nd January the matter was adjourned to 24th. On the 24th extension of time was given to the sureties to produce the judgment-debtor on 2nd February, but nothing-is said on the question of the liability of the sureties for non-production on the 15th January. The sureties apparently considering themselves discharged asked for an order of discharge. The District Munsif would not pass such an order. As he refused to pass such an order of discharge on the 2nd February, there was an appeal by the sureties to the District Court of Ramnad. He also agreed that he need not express an opinion at that stage and that they should make further application for an order of discharge. This order of the District Judge was on the 3rd November 1925. Immediately after the present revision petition was filed there was an order directing the stay of further proceedings in execution petition by my brother Kumaraswami Sastriar, J., on the 30th March, 1925 and apparently on account of this order nothing could be, done by the Courts below and the course indicated by the District Judge could not be pursued. Now I propose to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition without expressing any kind of opinion. The District Munsif of Devakottah will now proceed to consider the liability of the sureties and whether they are entitled to discharge on the merits. This petition is dismissed but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //