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

1931 Supreme(Mad) 144

ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR
Polavarapu Ankayya – Appellant
Versus
Gaddamanugu Subhadrayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. These are two revision petitions filed by defendant 2 in O. S. No. 446 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif of Bezwada. O. S. No. 446 of 1925 instituted by the plaintiff Subhadrayya was allowed on 7th April to be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit, but he was directed to pay costs of defendant 2 (the petitioner before me) on or before 7th May 1926.

2. The material portion of the order is as follows:

the plaintiff will pay defendant 2s costs Rupees 56-4-0 incurred till now within one month from this date and that in default the suit will stand dismissed with costs.

3. The costs were as a matter of fact paid, on 8th May 1926 into Court. It will be noticed that it was just one day too late having regard to the time mentioned in the decree. The plaintiff therefore filed an application in the District Munsifs Court purporting to be under Section 148 Civil P.C., asking the Court to extend the time mentioned in the decree for payment of defendant 2s costs. That application was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time Under Section 148 of the Code. Subsequently the plaintiff applied again to the District




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