Skip to content


(Tiruvallur Vangipuram) Krishnamacharulu Vs. Chitlur Venkata Subbiah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad1059; 97Ind.Cas.795
Appellant(Tiruvallur Vangipuram) Krishnamacharulu
RespondentChitlur Venkata Subbiah
Excerpt:
- .....that an extension was not warranted in these circumstances, and the only question is whether the district munsif acted with jurisdiction in granting such an extension under sections 148 and 151, code of civil procedure on the assumption that the decree was a preliminary decree. it must be held that the decree was final, and neither section 148 nor section 151 authorizes a court to meddle with its final decrees. probably the munsif would have been better advised to act under order 47, rule 1.4. the circumstances that two months happened to be an inadequate period was a sufficient reason for applying that that period should be reviewed. but considering that substantial justice has been done the fact that the district munsif misapprehended the appropriate rule does not necessitate the.....
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif of Nandalur on I.A. No. 490 of 1924 extending by six months the period allowed in the decree in O.S. No. 250 of 1922 of the Court for obtaining a succession certificate. The decree runs:

Time for succession certificate two months. The suit shall stand dismissed in default.

2. The counter-petitioner accordingly applied for the certificate, and finding that two months would be an insufficient period moved before its expiry for an extension.

3. It cannot be said that an extension was not warranted in these circumstances, and the only question is whether the District Munsif acted with jurisdiction in granting such an extension under Sections 148 and 151, Code of Civil Procedure on the assumption that the decree was a preliminary decree. It must be held that the decree was final, and neither Section 148 nor Section 151 authorizes a Court to meddle with its final decrees. Probably the Munsif would have been better advised to act under Order 47, Rule 1.

4. The circumstances that two months happened to be an inadequate period was a sufficient reason for applying that that period should be reviewed. But considering that substantial justice has been done the fact that the District Munsif misapprehended the appropriate rule does not necessitate the exercise of this Court's revisional power.

5. The petition is dismissed. There will be no costs.


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