Skip to content


S.S. Balakrishna Aiyar and anr. Vs. Muthammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Mad316; 82Ind.Cas.1028
AppellantS.S. Balakrishna Aiyar and anr.
RespondentMuthammal
Cases Referred and Gundan v. Kamakha Rama Chetti
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order ix, rule 13, order xvii, rule 3 - vakil stating 'no instructions', effect of--appearance--decree on merits--remedy. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read..........for the parties at many hearings does not mean that he withdraws from the undertaking in his vakalat unless it is so stated, we must, therefore, hold that there was an appearance and order xvii, rule 3 applies.2. appellant ought, therefore, to have filed an appeal against the decree: vide patinhare tarkatt rama mannadi v. vellur krishnan menon 26 m.p 267 and gundan v. kamakha rama chetti 33 ind. cas 660 : 3 l w 524. the filing of an application to set aside the decree, as if it had been made under order ix, rule 13, was, therefore, wrong as also the appeal from the order thereon. this appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The decree in Original Suit No. 138 of 1920 is one passed under Order XVII, r.3 of the Code of Civil procedure, as is clear from the judgment. The mere fact that the Vakil said he had no, instructions after he had appeared for the parties at many hearings does not mean that he withdraws from the undertaking in his vakalat unless it is so stated, We must, therefore, hold that there was an appearance and Order XVII, Rule 3 applies.

2. Appellant ought, therefore, to have filed an appeal against the decree: Vide Patinhare Tarkatt Rama Mannadi v. Vellur Krishnan Menon 26 M.P 267 and Gundan v. Kamakha Rama Chetti 33 Ind. Cas 660 : 3 L W 524. The filing of an application to set aside the decree, as if it had been made under Order IX, Rule 13, was, therefore, wrong as also the appeal from the order thereon. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.


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