Skip to content


Muruga Pillay and anr. Vs. Krishnamoorthy Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34Ind.Cas.547
AppellantMuruga Pillay and anr.
RespondentKrishnamoorthy Chetty
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 100 - practice--taking up big original suits after 5.30 p.m.--prejudice--appeal, second. - - the district munsif was not, in my opinion, acting in the best interests of the administration of justice when he took up substantial original suits at that late hour, which was fair neither to the parties nor to the witnesses nor to himself nor to anybody else......best interests of the administration of justice when he took up substantial original suits at that late hour, which was fair neither to the parties nor to the witnesses nor to himself nor to anybody else. but after all, nearly two years elapsed before the hearing of the appeal and yet no affidavit was put in before the judge explaining the circumstances, and no opportunity was sought to put in this affidavit before him and to explain why and in what manner the appellants were prejudiced. in these circumstances we cannot interfere and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.seshagiri aiyar, j.2. i agree. i am impressed by the circumstance that there is nothing to show that the appellants were ready to go on with the case. the affidavit of the vakil on the other side shows that the.....
Judgment:

Coutts Trotter, J.

1. We cannot interfere in this case. It is quite clear that the appellants were not ready with their case. They had not instructed their Vakil about it and he was not in a position to cross-examine and counted upon getting an adjournment. The District Munsif was not, in my opinion, acting in the best interests of the administration of justice when he took up substantial original suits at that late hour, which was fair neither to the parties nor to the witnesses nor to himself nor to anybody else. But after all, nearly two years elapsed before the hearing of the appeal and yet no affidavit was put in before the Judge explaining the circumstances, and no opportunity was sought to put in this affidavit before him and to explain why and in what manner the appellants were prejudiced. In these circumstances we cannot interfere and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

2. I agree. I am impressed by the circumstance that there is nothing to show that the appellants were ready to go on with the case. The affidavit of the Vakil on the other side shows that the appellants were not ready and wanted to apply for an adjournment. Therefore, they can have no grievance if the case was taken up at a very late hour though I agree with my learned colleague that it was altogether irregular on the part of the Munsif to take up a big new case at that hour. I agree to the order proposed by my learned colleague.


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