Skip to content


Sinnappa Naidu Vs. Sinnamma Naicken - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad201
AppellantSinnappa Naidu
RespondentSinnamma Naicken
Cases Referred and Sathaya Padayachi v. Soundarathachi A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- jackson, j.1. in this case, the petitioners' plaint was time-barred when the court rose and he pursued the district munsiff to his club, where he declined to receive it, after 6-30 p.m. i am now asked to treat it, as if he had received it, because in the light of din ram v. hari das (1912) 34 all. 482 and sathaya padayachi v. soundarathachi a.i.r. 1924 mad. 448, he might have received it.2. this cannot be done. the district munsiff was within his discretion, in refusing to receive a plaint at his club and it is impossible to consider at this stage what might have happened if he had exercised his discretion in another way the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. In this case, the petitioners' plaint was time-barred when the Court rose and he pursued the District Munsiff to his club, where he declined to receive it, after 6-30 p.m. I am now asked to treat it, as if he had received it, because in the light of Din Ram v. Hari Das (1912) 34 All. 482 and Sathaya Padayachi v. Soundarathachi A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 448, he might have received it.

2. This cannot be done. The District Munsiff was within his discretion, in refusing to receive a plaint at his club and it is impossible to consider at this stage what might have happened if he had exercised his discretion in another way the petition is dismissed.


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