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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 365

PAKENHAM WALSH
S. Ramaswamia Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Krishnammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly on I.A. No. 1267 of 1932 in O.S. No. 517 of 1932 refusing the order of the plaintiff in the suit to furnish security for costs. The plaintiff sued for a sum of Rs. 2,569-6-6 alleged to have been deposited by her husband with the defendant under the pass-book, dated 5th February, 1929. It is alleged that this sum has been gifted to the plaintiff by her husband. The plaintiff was given leave to sue in forma pauperis. The plaint appears to have been filed on 29th October, 1932, and issues were framed on 3rd November, 1932, and on that very day the petitioner (defendant) put in an application under Order 25, Rule 1(3), Civil Procedure Code, for furnishing security. It was returned on 4th November, 1932, and re-presented on 5th November, 1932. I append below the B diary with regard to this, which is important. It will be seen that the case was adjourned on several dates and that on 2nd February, 1933, the Court called for the judgment in O.S. No. 11 of 1930 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tuticorin and the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 17 of 1931 filed aga







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