SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(SC) 86

AMEER ALI, SIR JOHN EDGE, LORD CARSON, LORD BUCKMASTER, SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS
MUHAMMAD HAFIZ – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD ZAKARIYA – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellants: H. S. L. Polak.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 27 of 1920) from a judgment and decree (May 2, 1917) of the High Court reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Agra.

The suit was brought in January, 1915, by the appellants and the respondents other than the first named respondent to recover Rs. 14,000 principal and Rs.3010 interest due under a mortgage bond dated September 14, 1910. They had in March, 1914, sued for the interest then due under the mortgage, and had obtained a decree. The defendants (now represented by the first respondent) pleaded that the suit could not be maintained having regard to Order n., r. 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The material provisions of the deed, and the facts of the case, appear from the

2 Law Rep. 49 Ind. App. 9 ( 1921- 1922) Muhammad Hafiz V. Muhammad Zakariya

303

judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, but that decree was set aside on appeal to the High Court. The learned judges (Piggott and Walsh JJ.) were of opinion that the suit was barred by Order n., r. 2, which provides that " every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top