Skip to content


Gadicherla China Seetayya Vs. Gadicherla Seetayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR21Mad45
AppellantGadicherla China Seetayya
RespondentGadicherla Seetayya
Cases ReferredMukarrab Husain v. Hurmatunnissa I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 244 (c)--party to the suit. - 1. we think the subordinate judge was wrong in holding that the defendant who had been exonerated from the suit was a party within the meaning of section 244 (c) of the civil procedure code, and, therefore, that the plaintiff could not bring a separate suit against him, but was bound to proceed in execution [see mukarrab husain v. hurmatunnissa i.l.r. 18 all. 52.2. the fact that the plaintiff's claim arises out of expenses incurred in the course of executing the decree makes no difference. we express no opinion as to the merits of the plaintiff's claim. we, therefore, reverse the decision of the subordinate judge and direct him to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it according to law.3. the respondent must pay the appellant's costs.
Judgment:

1. We think the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the defendant who had been exonerated from the suit was a party within the meaning of Section 244 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, and, therefore, that the plaintiff could not bring a separate suit against him, but was bound to proceed in execution [see Mukarrab Husain v. Hurmatunnissa I.L.R. 18 All. 52.

2. The fact that the plaintiff's claim arises out of expenses incurred in the course of executing the decree makes no difference. We express no opinion as to the merits of the plaintiff's claim. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it according to law.

3. The respondent must pay the appellant's costs.


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