Skip to content


Bijjala Pedda Bali Reddi Vs. Bathula Chinna Nagi Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad564; (1941)1MLJ407
AppellantBijjala Pedda Bali Reddi
RespondentBathula Chinna Nagi Reddi and ors.
Cases ReferredAyyasami Aiyar v. Sivakki Ammal I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 407. this authority lays it down that when a court calls upon a surety to carry out the terms of his bond--and does so not under the strict terms of section 145, civil procedure code, but under the inherent powers given it by section 151, civil procedure code, the right of appeal which the surety would have had under section 145 is not lost to him under section 151. the same principle clearly applies to an order under section 151 read with section 144. if a party is ordered under section 151 to make restitution he must have a right of appeal......to the first appellate court. for this argument authority can no doubt be cited, lahore and patna, but in madras i am bound by ayyasami aiyar v. sivakki ammal i.l.r.(1932)mad. 909 : (1932) 65 m.l.j. 407. this authority lays it down that when a court calls upon a surety to carry out the terms of his bond--and does so not under the strict terms of section 145, civil procedure code, but under the inherent powers given it by section 151, civil procedure code, the right of appeal which the surety would have had under section 145 is not lost to him under section 151. the same principle clearly applies to an order under section 151 read with section 144. if a party is ordered under section 151 to make restitution he must have a right of appeal. that the proceedings in the present case were.....
Judgment:

King, J.

1. It is argued in second appeal that no appeal lay to the first appellate Court. For this argument authority can no doubt be cited, Lahore and Patna, but in Madras I am bound by Ayyasami Aiyar v. Sivakki Ammal I.L.R.(1932)Mad. 909 : (1932) 65 M.L.J. 407. This authority lays it down that when a Court calls upon a surety to carry out the terms of his bond--and does so not under the strict terms of Section 145, Civil Procedure Code, but under the inherent powers given it by Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, the right of appeal which the surety would have had under Section 145 is not lost to him under Section 151. The same principle clearly applies to an order under Section 151 read with Section 144. If a party is ordered under Section 151 to make restitution he must have a right of appeal. That the proceedings in the present case were analogous to proceedings under Section 144 cannot be doubted. The appeal to the first appellate Court was therefore competent. The first appellate Court reversed the Court of First instance on questions of fact which cannot now be challenged. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.


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