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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 11

SRINIVASAN
Elisa – Appellant
Versus
A. Doss – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Parthasarathy, for Petitioners; R. S. Venkatachari, for Respondent.

Judgement

ORDER:-Respondent herein filed O.S. No. 970 of 1989 against one Vincent for recovery of certain amount due on a promissory note. The suit was filed in April 1989. Summons was served on the defendant on 22-5-1989. The defendant did not enter appearance in the suit. He died on 16-8-1989. The suit was decreed ex parte on 1-9-1989. The respondent herein filed a petition on 20-9-1989 for execution of the decree. In the execution petition, the petitioners herein were shown as respondents as the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. As soon as the notice in the execution petition was served on the petitioners, they filed an application under S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in E.A. No. 1732 of 1989 for dismissing the execution petition on the ground that the decree dated 1-9-1989 was null and void, and it was passed against a dead person. The executing Court has dismissed the application taking the view that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4, CPC could be applied to the case. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. Order 22 Rule 4, CPC reads thus :

"(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the rights to sue does not surv
























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