Skip to content


Kokkan Muthiriyan Vs. K. Rajagopala Aiyangar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1927)53MLJ901
AppellantKokkan Muthiriyan
RespondentK. Rajagopala Aiyangar
Excerpt:
- .....he must go and show the receipt to the court and ask the court to refrain from issuing the warrant of arrest, i am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the lower court that a contractual obligation was thereby created which absolved the defendant from performing the legal duty which the civil procedure code lays on him under order 21, rule 2. a vakil cannot evade the duties that rule lays on him by pleading that he told the judgment-debtor to go and report the matter on his own account. on the other hand, if plaintiff had taken the receipt to the court, the court might have withdrawn the order of arrest, and thus the damages would have been reduced to a negligible amount.2. i am surprised that it is argued before me that the defendant had no obligation to report to the court.....
Judgment:

Wallace, J.

1. Taking the facts to be that, when the plaintiff paid the costs to the defendant, the defendant received them and told the plaintiff that he had no time to go and report satisfaction and, therefore, he must go and show the receipt to the Court and ask the Court to refrain from issuing the warrant of arrest, I am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the lower court that a contractual obligation was thereby created which absolved the defendant from performing the legal duty which the Civil Procedure Code lays on him under Order 21, Rule 2. A vakil cannot evade the duties that rule lays on him by pleading that he told the judgment-debtor to go and report the matter on his own account. On the other hand, If plaintiff had taken the receipt to the Court, the Court might have withdrawn the order of arrest, and thus the damages would have been reduced to a negligible amount.

2. I am surprised that it is argued before me that the defendant had no obligation to report to the Court satisfaction of the decree as early as possible, and thus prevent, if possible, the issue of the warrant of arrest. This view of the defendant requires correction. I think it is sufficient if I direct the respondent to pay the costs of the petitioner here and in the lower court. I reverse the decree of the lower court and decree accordingly.


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