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

1917 Supreme(Mad) 148

P. R. Srinivasa Aiyangar – Appellant
Versus
M. D. Narayana Aiyangar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. So far as I am able to see there are no merits in these cases. But I have to deal with the question of law which is one of considerable importance and argued before me; my conclusion is that the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to order execution of the decree, and also that he acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction by directing a warrant to issue without giving the petitioner previous notice of the application. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two petitions are these. A decree was obtained in the District Munsifs Court of Mysore in 1908. It was transferred for execution to the Small Cause Court, Madras in October 1915. As the decree holder did not take steps, his first application was dismissed in November 1915. A second application was presented on the 13th December 1915, and without notice to the petitioner, the arrest of the petitioner (judgment-debtor) was ordered on the 21st December 1915; thereupon he paid the amount of the decree into court and asked the Registrar to consider his order directing his arrest and also to pay him back the money which he had deposited. The Registrar refused the application and hence


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