Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Jackson
Kristamneni Kristnayya
Versus
Karnedhan Kothari
Decided On : 6 November, 1929
Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure Code - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The lower Court's order was found to be unsupported due to lack of jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code. The respondent complained about wanton delay in the suit by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the lower Court had no jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and allowed the petition with costs, canceling the order.
Issues: Jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code, Wanton Delay in Suit
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that there was no jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and that the issue of wanton delay in the suit was a matter for the lower Court.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed with costs and the order was cancelled.
Jackson, J.
1. The order of the lower Court cannot be supported. The Court certainly has no jurisdiction under Order 26, Rule 9, Sch. 1, Civil P.C. There is nothing in the affidavit to attract Order 39, Rule 1, and Order 39, Rule 6 merely gives power to a Court to sell a perishable article and certainly does not authorize it to send a commissioner to sell any crop. Nor is this a matter in which Section 151 should be invoked. The proper course for the respondent would be to apply for a receiver, if he has right to apply and if he has no right to apply for a receiver, he has no right to apply for a commissioner.
2. The respondent complains that the suit is being wantonly delayed by the petitioner in this Court-that is a matter for the lower Court.
3. The petition is allowed with costs and the order cancelled.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
