Skip to content


Arunachala Mudali Vs. Raghava Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1940)1MLJ477
AppellantArunachala Mudali
RespondentRaghava Pillai
Excerpt:
- - the application dated 12th august did not contain any description of the property to be attached and although the decree-holder was given an opportunity of supplying it, he failed to do so.burn, j.1. order 21, rule 13, civil procedure code, says that an application for attachment of any immovable property shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify the same. the application dated 12th august did not contain any description of the property to be attached and although the decree-holder was given an opportunity of supplying it, he failed to do so. the application was not 'in accordance with law' when it was presented, and as it was not amended within the time allowed no question of 'deeming it' to have been in accordance with the law [order 21, rule 17(2)] arises.2. this application is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Burn, J.

1. Order 21, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, says that an application for attachment of any immovable property shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify the same. The application dated 12th August did not contain any description of the property to be attached and although the decree-holder was given an opportunity of supplying it, he failed to do so. The application was not 'in accordance with law' when it was presented, and as it was not amended within the time allowed no question of 'deeming it' to have been in accordance with the law [Order 21, Rule 17(2)] arises.

2. This application is dismissed with costs.


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