Skip to content


Chadurnedulu Suryanarayana Vs. Chaturnedulu Ramanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.400
AppellantChadurnedulu Suryanarayana
RespondentChaturnedulu Ramanna
Cases ReferredBimola Soonduree Vassee v. Kalee Kishan Mojoomdar
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), section 17 - application to set aside ex parte decree--order for deposit of security--hearing of application before 'deposit--illegality--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) section 248--application made more than a, month after issue of notice--limitation. - - the district munsif was, in my opinion, clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but inasmuch as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, i should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision......time. the district munsif was, in my opinion, clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but inasmuch as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, i should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision. i think, however, that the application was barred by limitation. i agree with the decision in bimola soonduree vassee v. kalee kishan mojoomdar 22 w.r. 5, which held that the notice under section 2^8 is a process for enforcing the decree and i think that that process is executed when the notice is served.2. if this is the right view, the present application is barred by limitation and on that ground i set aside the district munsiff's order and dismiss the application for restoration with costs in both.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. No one appears for the respondent. I think the hearing of the application was barred by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as the security was not deposited, until after the petition was disposed of. No doubt in Ramasami v. Kurisu 13 Ma. 178, Parker and Wilkinson, JJ. held that Section 17 is merely directory but they did not decide that the Judge of the Small Cause Court could allow the deposit at any; time. The District Munsif was, in my opinion, clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but inasmuch as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, I should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision. I think, however, that the application was barred by limitation. I agree with the decision in Bimola Soonduree Vassee v. Kalee Kishan Mojoomdar 22 W.R. 5, which held that the notice under Section 2^8 is a process for enforcing the decree and I think that that process is executed when the notice is served.

2. If this is the right view, the present application is barred by limitation and on that ground I set aside the District Munsiff's order and dismiss the application for restoration with costs in both Courts.


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