Skip to content


The Commercial Bank of India (Limited) Vs. Sabju Saheb and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad252
AppellantThe Commercial Bank of India (Limited)
RespondentSabju Saheb and ors.
Excerpt:
letters patent, article 15 - refusal to order assignee of plaintiff to be brought on record--appeal--civil procedure code--act xiv of 1882, section 372--application to be brought en record in substitution for plaintiff and for postponement of decree. - .....of 1895 as plaintiffs with t. sabju saheb, as the mortgagee from him of the subject-matter of the suit.2. the application was rejected by the learned judge, and the first question is whether an appeal lies from his order. we can find nothing on record as to the judge's reasons for refusing the application, and as, in our opinion, it was not made too late with reference to the facts of the case we must treat the order as one disposing of the application on the merits. in that view it wag a judgment within the meaning of article 15 of the letters patent and therefore appealable.3. we think the application should have been complied with, as the bank was directly interested in the matters to be settled by the decree, and was justified in asking the court to postpone the passing of a final.....
Judgment:

1. This was an application under Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Commercial Bank, the appellants, to be brought upon the record of Civil Suit No. 160 of 1895 as plaintiffs with T. Sabju Saheb, as the mortgagee from him of the subject-matter of the suit.

2. The application was rejected by the learned Judge, and the first question is whether an appeal lies from his order. We can find nothing on record as to the Judge's reasons for refusing the application, and as, in our opinion, it was not made too late with reference to the facts of the case we must treat the order as one disposing of the application on the merits. In that view it wag a judgment within the meaning of Article 15 of the Letters Patent and therefore appealable.

3. We think the application should have been complied with, as the Bank was directly interested in the matters to be settled by the decree, and was justified in asking the Court to postpone the passing of a final decree until the matters left undetermined by the certificate were enquired into and determined. That was a reasonable request, as the certificate had in fact left matters undetermined, and the decree, subsequently passed upon the footing of the certificate, carries the final decision of the case no further. It is doubtful what the nature of that decree is, as in its terms it is not final, leaving other matters still to be adjudicated upon. Taking it, as far as it goes, to have the effect of a decree, we cannot join the Bank as a party to the suit except subject to that decree, but we are of opinion that, being so subject thereto, they should be brought on the record as co-plaintiffs, and we order accordingly. Although this will not enable them to re-open questions already settled, it will give them an opportunity of taking part in the further proceedings contemplated by the decree. We reverse the learned Judge's order as to costs relating to this application in his Court and direct that the appellants' costs in this appeal be paid by the defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5.


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