Skip to content


Sesha Aiyar and anr. Vs. Nagarathna Lala, Minor by His Next, Bhavani Bai Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ362
AppellantSesha Aiyar and anr.
RespondentNagarathna Lala, Minor by His Next, Bhavani Bai Ammal
Cases ReferredSabapathi Chetti v. Narayanasami Chetti I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....case cannot apply for security being demanded from the appellant for costs. section 540 of the civil procedure code applies only to appeals preferred to the high court from subordinate courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction sabapathi chetti v. narayanasami chetti i.l.r. 25 m. 555 and not to appeals preferred to the high court under section 15 of the letters patent from the judgment of one of its fudges. assuming that it would be competent to the high court to pass such a rule, no rule has been made under section 652 of the code of civil procedure authorizing the making of such an application. it is also conceded that no such rule was in force in the old sudder court, and that being so, section 9 of the charter act cannot be relied upon in support of this application. i am.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In my opinion the respondent in a Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the decision of a single judge of this Court in a mofussil case cannot apply for security being demanded from the appellant for costs. Section 540 of the Civil Procedure Code applies only to appeals preferred to the High Court from Subordinate Courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction Sabapathi Chetti v. Narayanasami Chetti I.L.R. 25 M. 555 and not to appeals preferred to the High Court under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of one of its fudges. Assuming that it would be competent to the High Court to pass such a rule, no rule has been made under Section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing the making of such an application. It is also conceded that no such rule was in force in the old Sudder Court, and that being so, Section 9 of the Charter Act cannot be relied upon in support of this application. I am unable to accede to the argument that Section 467 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to Letters Patent Appeals and that, therefore, the provisions of of Section 549 are extended to Letters Patent Appeals. The petition is therefore rejected but without costs Nor can stay of execution be had pending a Letters Patent Appeal. See order on C.M.P. 882 of 1903 in L.P.A. 39 of 1933--Ed


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