Skip to content


Muthusawmi Gownden Vs. Ethirajulu Naidu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.432
AppellantMuthusawmi Gownden
RespondentEthirajulu Naidu and anr.
Cases ReferredMuttia v. Appasami
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rules 95, 97 - petition under rule 97--dismissal of petition--subsequent petition under rule 95, whether barred. - .....against. that application was, however, made under rules 95 and 97 and was treated as one under rule 97 by the district judge in his order. it has been held by this court in muttia v. appasami 13 m.k 504 that there is nothing to prevent a decree-holder or purchaser from making a fresh application under rule 95 after he had made a complaint under rule 97. we agree with this view and set aside the order appealed against with costs in this court. the district judge will restore the petition to his file and deal with it in accordance with law.
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Coimbatore on C.M.P. No. 99 of 1911, under Order XXI, Rule 95, asking to be put in possession of immoveable property. The District Judge has rejected it, holding that a similar application, made to his j predecessor in C.M.P. No. 106 of 1910, had been dismissed and that it was not appealed against. That application was, however, made under Rules 95 and 97 and was treated as one under Rule 97 by the District Judge in his order. It has been held by this Court in Muttia v. Appasami 13 M.k 504 that there is nothing to prevent a decree-holder or purchaser from making a fresh application under Rule 95 after he had made a complaint under Rule 97. We agree with this view and set aside the order appealed against with costs in this Court. The District Judge will restore the petition to his file and deal with it in accordance with law.


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