Back
1909 Supreme(Mad) 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Munro and Abdur Rahim, JJ.
Ponnusawmy Nadar and Anr.
Versus
V. Doraisawmy Aiyar
Decided On : 12.01.1909
Section 246 of the Civil Procedure Code requires both decrees to be before the Court for execution for set-off.
Headnote:
Set-off - Civil Procedure Code - Section 246
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff seeks to set off a decree in one suit against a decree in another suit, but the requirement under Section 246 of the Civil Procedure Code is not satisfied as both decrees are not before the Court for execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court reverses the lower court's order and restores the order of the Subordinate Judge, as the requirement under Section 246 is not met.
Issues: The main issue is whether the plaintiff can set off the decree in one suit against the decree in another suit under Section 246 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the interpretation of Section 246 of the Civil Procedure Code, which clearly requires both decrees to be before the Court for execution.
Final Decision: The court reverses the lower court's order and restores the order of the Subordinate Judge, with all costs subsequent thereto.
1. What the plaintiff wants to do is to set off the decree in Original Suit No. 37 of 1893 against the decree in Original Suit No. 25 of 1899. He can only do this, if at all, under Section 246, Civil Procedure Code. This section, however, clearly requires that both the decrees should be before the Court for execution,--Vide Chajmal Das v. Lal Dharam Singh 24 A.j 481. The precise point now under consideration was not raised and decided in Sinnu Pandaram v. Santhoji Row 26 M.j 428. The above requirement is not satisfied in the present case. We reverse the lower Courts order and restore the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated 13th October 1906, with all costs subsequent thereto.
