Skip to content


S. Vijiaraghavalu Naidu Vs. M. Rajamani Ayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Mad512
AppellantS. Vijiaraghavalu Naidu
RespondentM. Rajamani Ayyar
Cases ReferredRamaswami Chettiar v. Tyagaraja Pillai A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- jackson, j.1. this petition seems to have been admitted to see whether the learned district munsif when he refused to receive documents that were six months late, a delay for which there was no satisfactory explanation infringed the precept of ramaswami chettiar v. tyagaraja pillai a.i.r.1928 mad.516. it does not seem that ramaswami chettiar v. tyagaraja pillai a.i.r.1928 mad.516 in any way modifies the law as laid down in order 13, rules 1 and 2, civil p.c. the rule is peremptory that documents on which a party intends to rely must be produced at the first hearing and rule 62 of the civil rules of practice does not relieve the party of that obligation.2. i am not prepared to hold that the learned district munsif has erred. the petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. This petition seems to have been admitted to see whether the learned District Munsif when he refused to receive documents that were six months late, a delay for which there was no satisfactory explanation infringed the precept of Ramaswami Chettiar v. Tyagaraja Pillai A.I.R.1928 Mad.516. It does not seem that Ramaswami Chettiar v. Tyagaraja Pillai A.I.R.1928 Mad.516 in any way modifies the law as laid down in Order 13, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P.C. The rule is peremptory that documents on which a party intends to rely must be produced at the first hearing and Rule 62 of the Civil Rules of Practice does not relieve the party of that obligation.

2. I am not prepared to hold that the learned District Munsif has erred. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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