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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 342

CURGENVEN
Lakshmanan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Chidambaram Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Curgenven, J.

1. The appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken in a suit filed to recover some property from a number of defendants. We are here-concerned with defendant 9. With the others he contested the suit and it was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, defendant 9 being impleaded as respondent 8. On 2nd May 1926, he was served with notice of the appeal but he failed to comply with the terms of the notice by entering an appearance within the 30 days allowed. The appeal was disposed of in December 1930, and sometime in June, 1927, while it was pending, respondent died. After his death three petitions were filed by the appellant in the appeal: (1) to excuse the delay which had occurred, (2) to set aside the abatement of the appeal, and bring on the legal representatives of respondent 8, namely the present appellant 1, as respondents 10, and (3) to appoint his mother as his guardian, he being a minor. In disposing of these petitions, the learned Judges, Phillips and Devadoss, JJ. passed an order in these terms:

Under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil P.C., no legal representatives need be impleaded. The petitions-are dismissed.

2. The appeal was heard





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