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

1961 Supreme(Ker) 10

M.MADHAVAN NAIR
Narayanaru Nampiathiri – Appellant
Versus
Govindan Nair – Respondent


Advocates:
D. Narayanan Potti, for Petitioner; T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and G. Rajasekhara Menon for Respondent.

ORDER :- The decree-holder in Small Cause Suit No.37 of 1957 on the file of the Pathanamthitta Munsiffs Court attached the unpaid purchase money due from the petitioner in this C.R.P. to the 2nd defendant in the case. The petitioner contended that he had discharged the amount payable to the 2nd defendant under two unregistered receipts on dates prior to the attachment and therefore he was not liable to pay anything under the attachment. The liability of the petitioner was therefore enquired into by the learned Munsiff under Rule 46-C of Order XXI, C.P.C. and it was found that the discharge pleaded was untrue and that the garnishee was liable to deposit the amount in court as per the attachment. The garnishee has come up for a revision of the above-said order.

2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the impugned order is appealable under R.46-1 of Order XXI, C.P.C. and therefore this petition for revision of the same is incompetent.

3. Order XXI, Rule 46-I reads:

"46-I. Orders appealable: An order made under rules 46-B, 46-C or 46-E, shall have the same force as a decree and shall be appealable as such."

The learned counsel for the petitioner would however sa


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