Skip to content


C. Ekambare Mudaliar Vs. Sivasankara Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetter Patent Appeal No. 78 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1962Mad263
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 44, Rule 1
AppellantC. Ekambare Mudaliar
RespondentSivasankara Mudaliar
Excerpt:
- .....ramachandra iyer, offg.c.j.(1) this is an appeal from the judgment of jagadisan, j., declining to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the decree in o. s. no. 827 of 1958 on the file of the city civil court, madras. that matter came up for orders as to admission before us on 24th august 1961. we found that the judgment of the city civil judge could prima facie be said to be erroneous in law for the limited purpose of granting leave under order 44, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure. but we were of opinion that before setting aside the judgment of the learned judge of this court, notice to the respondent was necessary, albeit the order appealed against was passed in his absence, and we directed notice to issue. the appellant did not, however, take notice as directed but he.....
Judgment:

S. Ramachandra Iyer, Offg.C.J.

(1) This is an appeal from the judgment of Jagadisan, J., declining to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the decree in O. S. No. 827 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. That matter came up for orders as to admission before us on 24th August 1961. We found that the judgment of the City Civil Judge could prima facie be said to be erroneous in law for the limited purpose of granting leave under Order 44, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But we were of opinion that before setting aside the judgment of the learned Judge of this court, notice to the respondent was necessary, albeit the order appealed against was passed in his absence, and we directed notice to issue. The appellant did not, however, take notice as directed but he has instead requested the matter to be spoken to before us today bringing to our attention the decision in Chennamma, in re, ILR 53 Mad 245 : AIR 1931 Mad 198. That decision referred to certain earlier precedents and stated that no notice was necessary to the respondents before deciding a Letters Patent appeal against an order declining to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In view of that decision, we are now of opinion that no notice need be taken by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant was the plaintiff in the trial court and was allowed to sue in forma pauperis and as such no further enquiry into his pauperism is necessary. We therefore set aside our order dated 24-8-1961 directing issue of notice to the respondent and allow this appeal and grant leave to the appellant to prefer the appeal (S. R. No. 7315) in forma pauperis.

(2) Order accordingly.


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