Skip to content


Krishna Rao Vs. Janaki Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad681; (1939)1MLJ728
AppellantKrishna Rao
RespondentJanaki Ammal and ors.
Cases ReferredSubbaraya Devai v. Sundaresa Devai
Excerpt:
- .....9, rule 9 read along with section 141, civil procedure code, does apply to pauper petitions. there is a conflict of authority on the question whether the dismissal for default of a pauper petition bars a future petition on the same grounds. but whether the decision operates as res judicata or not, if the court has jurisdiction to decide a petition under order 9, rule 9 and section 141, it has a duty to decide such a petition on its merits and cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy. the petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the lower court for disposal on the merits. costs to abide the result.
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. It seems to me that the lower Court was wrong in declining to consider this application on the merits. The case of Subbaraya Devai v. Sundaresa Devai (1932) 36 L.W. 586 is authority for the view that Order 9, Rule 9 read along with Section 141, Civil Procedure Code, does apply to pauper petitions. There is a conflict of authority on the question whether the dismissal for default of a pauper petition bars a future petition on the same grounds. But whether the decision operates as res judicata or not, if the Court has jurisdiction to decide a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 141, it has a duty to decide such a petition on its merits and cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy. The petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the lower Court for disposal on the merits. Costs to abide the result.


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