Skip to content


Kuppusami Chetti Vs. Rathnavelu Chetti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad511
AppellantKuppusami Chetti
RespondentRathnavelu Chetti and ors.
Cases ReferredIn R. v. R. I.L.R.
Excerpt:
letters patent, article 15 - judgment--order directing receiver in suit to advance money for defence by guardian ad litem--appeal. - .....is so advanced provision is ultimately made for it in the decree. if the plaintiff succeeds in a suit, the money which he has been required to advance for the defence conducted on behalf of a minor defendant is recoverable as part of the costs of plaintiff. on the face of the order it is an order to make an advance of money which in a certain event will be recoverable. in that sense it is not a final order and does not finally determine any right or question between the parties. we cannot distinguish the present order from an order for stay of execution or for giving security for costs. in r. v. r. i.l.r. 14 mad. 88 it was not necessary to decide that the order in so far as it was an order for adjournment was appealable. that part of the order under appeal was left untouched by the.....
Judgment:

1. The question whether the order appealed against is a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent must be considered with reference to the circumstances as they stood when the order was made. It is an order requiring the appellant, as receiver, to advance a sum of money to one of the parties to the suit for her defence. Ordinarily, when money is so advanced provision is ultimately made for it in the decree. If the plaintiff succeeds in a suit, the money which he has been required to advance for the defence conducted on behalf of a minor defendant is recoverable as part of the costs of plaintiff. On the face of the order it is an order to make an advance of money which in a certain event will be recoverable. In that sense it is not a final order and does not finally determine any right or question between the parties. We cannot distinguish the present order from an order for stay of execution or for giving security for costs. In R. v. R. I.L.R. 14 Mad. 88 it was not necessary to decide that the order in so far as it was an order for adjournment was appealable. That part of the order under appeal was left untouched by the Court of Appeal.

2. We must dismiss the appeal with costs.


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