Skip to content


Chaturvedula Suryanarayana Vs. Chaturvedula Ramamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR34Mad88
AppellantChaturvedula Suryanarayana
RespondentChaturvedula Ramamma
Cases ReferredBimola Soonduree Dassee v. Kalee Kishen Meojoomdar
Excerpt:
provincial small couse courts act ix of 1887, section 1f - security on application for order to set aside ex-parte decree--indian limitation act xv of 1877, schedule ii, article 164--notice under section 248, civil procedure code, act xiv of 1882--execution of process. - - the district munsif was in my opinion clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but in as much as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, i should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision......kishen meojoomdar (1874) 22 w.r. 5 which held that the notice under section 248 is a process for enforcing the decree and i think that that process is executed when the notice is served.2. if this is the right view the present application is barred by limitation, and on that ground i set aside the district munsif's order and dismiss the application for restoration with costs in both courts.
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. No one appeared for respondent. I think the hearing of the application was barred by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as the security was not deposited until after the petition was disposed of. No doubt in Ramasiuami v. Kurisu I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 178, Parkar and Wilkinson, JJ., held that Section 17 is 'merely directory,' but they did not decide that the Judge of the Small Cause Court could allow the deposit at any time. The District Munsif was in my opinion clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but in as much as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, I should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision. I think, however, that the application was barred by limitation, I agree with the decision in Bimola Soonduree Dassee v. Kalee Kishen Meojoomdar (1874) 22 W.R. 5 which held that the notice under Section 248 is a process for enforcing the decree and I think that that process is executed when the notice is served.

2. If this is the right view the present application is barred by limitation, and on that ground I set aside the District Munsif's order and dismiss the application for restoration with costs in both Courts.


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