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

1949 Supreme(Mad) 191

HORWILL
T. G. Varadarajulu Naidu – Appellant
Versus
K. J. Narayanaswami Naidu alias Lakshminarayana Naidu – Respondent


Advocates:
T.V. Ramanatha Aiyar for Petitioners.
K.S. Desikan for Respondents.

Judgment

Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of the first defendant and the plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant’s deceased brother. The plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that a certain house belonged to their father and that a room in that house had with his permission been occupied by the defendants. Quarrels having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants, this suit was filed for the recovery of possession of that room and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of other portions of the house. The defendants claimed that they had an equal share in the house. After perusing the written statements the plaintiffs thought it desirable that a fresh suit should be instituted in which wider questions could be raised; and so made an application to the Court under Order 23, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the suit, praying for liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. That application was allowed.

Order 23, rule 1 permits the Court to grant liberty to institute a fresh suit with regard to the same subject-matter provided:

“(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (A) that






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