Skip to content


Mu. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. C.K. Kadar Mohideen Rowther and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad791; 84Ind.Cas.968; (1924)47MLJ522
AppellantMu. Chidambaram Chettiar
RespondentC.K. Kadar Mohideen Rowther and ors.
Excerpt:
- orderjackson, j.1. the petitioner's pauper petition was rejected merely because it was presented in person to the sheristadar and not to the court.2. there is no reason to hold that rule 14 of the civil rules of practice is ultra vires. ' court ' is nowhere defined in the code of civil procedure (1908) and the ' court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf ' is the court for purposes of receiving suits, and, by analogy, applications. the insistence in order 33, rule 3, civil procedure code, is on ' in person ' not on court as meaning ' judge himself.' if necessary the learned subordinate judge may take up the petition again in the light of these remarks; but possibly subsequent circumstances have rendered further action unnecessary.
Judgment:
ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. The petitioner's pauper petition was rejected merely because it was presented in person to the Sheristadar and not to the Court.

2. There is no reason to hold that Rule 14 of the Civil Rules of Practice is ultra vires. ' Court ' is nowhere defined in the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) and the ' Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf ' is the Court for purposes of receiving suits, and, by analogy, applications. The insistence in Order 33, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, is on ' in person ' not on Court as meaning ' Judge himself.' If necessary the learned Subordinate Judge may take up the petition again in the light of these remarks; but possibly subsequent circumstances have rendered further action unnecessary.


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