Skip to content


In Re: the District Munsif of Tiruvallur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1914)ILR37Mad17
AppellantIn Re: the District Munsif of Tiruvallur
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 269, rule framed under - binding until rules made under new civil procedure code--bond given under rules, deemed to be given by order of court, stamp of--'otherwise provided for by the court fees act.'--court fees act (vii of 1870), schedule ii, article 6--stamp act (ii of 1899), schedule i, article 15. - .....the officer attaching the property to act in accordance with the rules notwithstanding they may be inconsistent with the provisions of the section. section 157 of the code of 1908 keeps alive the rules, etc., made under the old code so far as they are consistent with the code of 1908. there is nothing in the code of 1908, as distinguished from the orders in the first schedule to the code, which is inconsistent with the rules issued under section 269, though there is an inconsistency between the rules and order xxi, rule 43. but the high court has power to alter the rules in the first schedule. this being so, i do not think it follows that, because the rules made under the old section are inconsistent with the rules in the schedule, they are not consistent with this code within the.....
Judgment:

Charles Arnold White, C.J.

1. In this matter a point was raised by the Government Pleader as to whether the rules, in connection with which this reference arises, have now any legal effect.

2. The power given to the Local Government by Section 269 of the old Code to make rules for the maintenance of attached livestock is now given to the High Court by Section 128(2)(b). Order XXI, Rule 43, reproduces the old Section 269, but it does not reproduce the provision requiring the officer attaching the property to act in accordance with the rules notwithstanding they may be inconsistent with the provisions of the section. Section 157 of the Code of 1908 keeps alive the rules, etc., made under the old Code so far as they are consistent with the Code of 1908. There is nothing in the Code of 1908, as distinguished from the orders in the first schedule to the Code, which is inconsistent with the rules issued under Section 269, though there is an inconsistency between the rules and Order XXI, Rule 43. But the High Court has power to alter the rules in the first schedule. This being so, I do not think it follows that, because the rules made under the old section are inconsistent with the rules in the schedule, they are not consistent with this Code within the meaning of Section 157.

3. The point is not free from doubt, but until rules are made by the High Court, I think the rules made by Government under Section 269 of the old Code are in force.

4. Section 157 is an enabling, not a repealing, section. The rules have never been expressly repealed and I do not think we are bound to held they are implicitly repealed by virtue of the words 'so far as they are consistent with this Code,' which occur in Section 157.

5. As regards the question raised in the letter of reference, as the bond is given in pursuance of a rule made under power conferred by a section of the Code, I think the bond may be said to be given in pursuance of an order made by a Court under a section of the Code of Civil Procedure, that consequently the bond is 'otherwise provided for by the Court Fees Act' (see Schedule II, Article 6, Court Fees Act, 1870 and Schedule 1, Article 15 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899), and that the stamp is an eightanna stamp under the Court Pees Act.

Munro, J.

6. I agree.

Sankaran Nair, J.

7. I agree.


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