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

1927 Supreme(Mad) 47

CURGENVEN
Ayyamperumal Nadar – Appellant
Versus
Muthuswami Pillai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Curgenven, J.

1. The petitioners here are defendants in O. S. No. 626 of 1925 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thirumangalam and the respondent is plaintiff in that suit. Against this respondent the petitioners hold a small cause decree in a suit (S. C. S. No. 799 of 22) on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura. In the former suit, the respondent obtained from the District Munsif an injunction restraining the petitioners from executing the small cause decree. The petitioners appealed against the grant of this injunction to the District Court, which held that no appeal lay. They have now presented this revision petition, contending that the learned District Judge erred in so dismissing their appeal.

2. Confining ourselves first to the express provisions of the Civil P. C. the power to grant a temporary injunction is derived from Section 94, which permits of this course, "if it is so prescribed." Prescribed by the rules passed under the Code, and the rules relating to temporary injunctions are to be found in Order 39. It is quite clear, and indeed it has scarcely been contended, that these rules cannot be made applicable to a case such as th

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