Skip to content


Malamal Vittil Krishnan Nair Vs. Kavalappara Moopil Nair - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1915Mad41(1); (1914)27MLJ171
AppellantMalamal Vittil Krishnan Nair
RespondentKavalappara Moopil Nair
Cases ReferredSee Ramachandra v. Balmukund I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - we think the objection is well founded.1. the district judge passed an order under order 41, rule 5 refusing to stay the execution of a decree passed by the subordinate judge against which an appeal is pending before himself. this is an appeal against his order.2. a preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. we think the objection is well founded. mr. ramachandra aiyar contends that the order falls within the purview of section 47 and is therefore appealable. but that section only applies to orders passed by the court executing the decree. in this case the district court is not the court executing the decree. see ramachandra v. balmukund i.l.r. (1904) b. 71.3. we therefore uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The District Judge passed an order under Order 41, Rule 5 refusing to stay the execution of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge against which an appeal is pending before himself. This is an appeal against his order.

2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. We think the objection is well founded. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar contends that the order falls within the purview of Section 47 and is therefore appealable. But that section only applies to orders passed by the court executing the decree. In this case the District Court is not the Court executing the decree. See Ramachandra v. Balmukund I.L.R. (1904) B. 71.

3. We therefore uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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