Skip to content


Subbarayadu Vs. Chenchuramayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad200
AppellantSubbarayadu
RespondentChenchuramayya
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882 section 162--summons forms nos. 125, 126--summons to witness--postponement of hearing of case--necessity for issuing fresh summons--practice. - - section 16 3 of the code of civil procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses being detained beyond one day has not been overlooked.1. we are told that the practice is, if a case is not reached on a given day, for fresh summons to witnesses to be required. this is altogether a mistake. section 16 3 of the code of civil procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses being detained beyond one day has not been overlooked. the proper course was to warn the witnesses on the 10th that they would be required to appear on the 17th [see proceedings of the madras high court dated 18th january 1870 m.h.c.r. appx 15 and other cases cited in mayne's 'criminal law', page 85.]2. we must reverse the decree and remand the case. costs will abide the result.
Judgment:

1. We are told that the practice is, if a case is not reached on a given day, for fresh summons to witnesses to be required. This is altogether a mistake. Section 16 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses being detained beyond one day has not been overlooked. The proper course was to warn the witnesses on the 10th that they would be required to appear on the 17th [see Proceedings of the Madras High Court dated 18th January 1870 M.H.C.R. Appx 15 and other cases cited in Mayne's 'Criminal Law', page 85.]

2. We must reverse the decree and remand the case. Costs will abide the result.


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