Skip to content


P. Sundaram Mudaliar Vs. C. Muthuswami Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad908
AppellantP. Sundaram Mudaliar
RespondentC. Muthuswami Pillai
Excerpt:
- - for i do not think it right for the judge, upon the making of a decree, to stay the execution of it unconditionally, without very much better cause being shown by the defendant than that his property is tied up and that he cannot lay his hands upon it for the moment......being in some way secured. in my view, it is not correct, under these circumstances to stay execution unconditionally, or by imposing simply a condition as to giving security for a small amount for defendant's appearance, in six months' time as was done in this case. but it is suggested that, in the interests of everybody concerned, it will be possible now to make a satisfactory order as to the terms, on which this decree may be stayed, and it is suggested that the respondent, defendant will be able to give to the plaintiff in a short time security to his satisfaction. therefore, i propose to adjourn the hearing of the appeal until the 7th february and if, meanwhile, the defendant gives security, either on property or in the ordinary way, to the satisfaction of the deputy.....
Judgment:

Schwabe, C.J.

1. In my judgment, the order made in this case was wrong, apart altogether from the question, whether there was any power, under the circumstances of the case, to make an order under Order 20, Rule 11(1) in that the decree was passed under the Rules by the Deputy Registrar on December the 11th and this order was made by Devadoss, J., several days later. For I do not think it right for the Judge, upon the making of a decree, to stay the execution of it unconditionally, without very much better cause being shown by the defendant than that his property is tied up and that he cannot lay his hands upon it for the moment. That may be a ground for staying execution conditionally, oh the judgment-creditor being in some way secured. In my view, it is not correct, under these circumstances to stay execution unconditionally, or by imposing simply a condition as to giving security for a small amount for defendant's appearance, in six months' time as was done in this case. But it is suggested that, in the interests of everybody concerned, it will be possible now to make a satisfactory order as to the terms, on which this decree may be stayed, and it is suggested that the respondent, defendant will be able to give to the plaintiff in a short time security to his satisfaction. Therefore, I propose to adjourn the hearing of the appeal until the 7th February and if, meanwhile, the defendant gives security, either on property or in the ordinary way, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar, Original side, the stay will stand. If by that time, he fails to give that security, the stay must be removed and, in any event, the taxed costs of this appeal must be paid by the respondent and the costs of the motion in this appeal will be payable by the defendant. The defendant says that on an application to the Tanjore Court, where a Receiver has been appointed of his property in a matter which came before us the other day, he Will probably obtain authority to pay to the present plaintiff the amount of his debts. As far as we are concerned, we think that it will be very desirable that such an application shall be made, but we know nothing as to its practicability.

Ramesam, J.

2. I agree.


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