Skip to content


Dwarka Dass Agurwallah Vs. Girish Chunder Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR26Cal766
AppellantDwarka Dass Agurwallah
RespondentGirish Chunder Roy
Excerpt:
practice - deposit by defendant of money in court in satisfaction of claim--bight of plaintiff to draw out such money and prosecute suit for balance claimed--discretion of court--code of civil procedure (act xiv of 1882), sections 377, 379. - .....not liable to pay any interest in respect of the amount so paid. the plaintiff is penalised if he does not take the money out. the code provides that no interest is to be paid to the plaintiff after he receives notice of the payment into court, and directs that the money shall be paid to the plaintiff 'unless the court otherwise directs.' i think the court has a discretion to refuse to allow the money to be paid out, but that discretion is to be exercised reasonably. in a case where the money sued for is due on a promissory note it would be unreasonable in the absence of special circumstances not to allow the plaintiff to take the money out. i am aware of mr. hyde's offer to pay interest, but i do not think that this offer would justify me in refusing to grant the application. i think.....
Judgment:

Stanley, J.

1. The question is not one as to the greater convenience of the English practice or the practice in this country. According to the English practice the money remains in Court till the decision of the suit. That was possibly a wise alteration of the previous practice. The practice is not so here. By the provisions of the Code a defendant is allowed to pay money into Court, and after such payment he is not liable to pay any interest in respect of the amount so paid. The plaintiff is penalised if he does not take the money out. The Code provides that no interest is to be paid to the plaintiff after he receives notice of the payment into Court, and directs that the money shall be paid to the plaintiff 'unless the Court otherwise directs.' I think the Court has a discretion to refuse to allow the money to be paid out, but that discretion is to be exercised reasonably. In a case where the money sued for is due on a promissory note it would be unreasonable in the absence of special circumstances not to allow the plaintiff to take the money out. I am aware of Mr. Hyde's offer to pay interest, but I do not think that this offer would justify me in refusing to grant the application. I think Mr. Mitter has established his right to take the money out of Court, and I shall make the order with costs.


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