Skip to content


Ponnusami Goundan and ors. Vs. Alamelammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1949)1MLJ61
AppellantPonnusami Goundan and ors.
RespondentAlamelammal and ors.
Cases ReferredMythili Ammal and Anr. v. R. Mahadeva Ayyar and Ors.
Excerpt:
- .....ors. : air1948pat183 and the decisions referred to therein. under order xxx, rules 5 and 6 of the code of civil procedure as amended by this court, the court is not justified in shutting out evidence which the petitioners in this court wanted to adduce in the lower court. they wanted to show that the suit which was sought to be instituted and for which leave to sue in forma pauperis was applied for was barred by limitation as more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of the alienations which were impugned in the suit by proving that these alienations really were in discharge of earlier mortgages. the learned subordinate judge thought that the enquiry contemplated in order xx, rule 6, perhaps meaning order xxxiii, rule 6 of the code of civil procedure does not permit such an.....
Judgment:

Satyanarayana Rao, J.

1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court reported in Mythili Ammal and Anr. v. R. Mahadeva Ayyar and Ors. : AIR1948Pat183 and the decisions referred to therein. Under Order XXX, Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Court, the Court is not justified in shutting out evidence which the petitioners in this Court wanted to adduce in the lower Court. They wanted to show that the suit which was sought to be instituted and for which leave to sue in forma pauperis was applied for was barred by limitation as more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of the alienations which were impugned in the suit by proving that these alienations really were in discharge of earlier mortgages. The learned Subordinate Judge thought that the enquiry contemplated in Order XX, Rule 6, perhaps meaning Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit such an enquiry. In the light of the decisions referred to, I have no hesitation in holding that the view of the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong and his order therefore is set aside and the petition which is now pending before him will be heard and disposed of in the light of this judgment. The petitioner is entitled to his costs in this civil revision petition.


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