Skip to content


Syed Abdul Rahiman Sahib Vs. Govinda Padayachi and Two ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1905)15MLJ406
AppellantSyed Abdul Rahiman Sahib
RespondentGovinda Padayachi and Two ors.
Excerpt:
- .....paragraph 10 applies to a case where a party fails to comply with the directions given in paragraph 9. if paragraph 9 was intended to be anything more than the directory, i should be disposed to hold, it would be ultra vires as inconsistent with section 312 of the code of civil procedure. both paragraphs 9 and 10 have now been deleted from the form. i set aside the order cancelling the sale and directing the deposit to be credited to government.3. the case will go back to the district munsiff.
Judgment:

Charles Arnold White, Kt. C.J.

1. Paragraph 9 in form No. 56 appended to the Civil Rules of Practice appears under the general heading ' conditions of the sale.' In my opinion the paragraph is directory and cannot be said to be a condition of sale in the ordinary acceptation of the term.

2. I do not think paragraph 10 applies to a case where a party fails to comply with the directions given in paragraph 9. If paragraph 9 was intended to be anything more than the directory, I should be disposed to hold, it would be ultra vires as inconsistent with Section 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both paragraphs 9 and 10 have now been deleted from the form. I set aside the order cancelling the sale and directing the deposit to be credited to Government.

3. The case will go back to the District Munsiff.


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