High CourtsDivision Bench(1939) 12 MAD CK 0007

Arunachala Mudali vs Raghava Pillai

Madras High Court · Decided on 14 December 1939 · Citation: (1940) 51 LW 426 : (1940) 1 MLJ 477

HON’BLE JUDGES
Burn, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 109 words

Burn, J.—Order 21, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, says that an application for attachment of any immovable property shall contain a

description of the property sufficient to identify the same. The application dated 12th August did not contain any description of the property to be

attached and although the decree-holder was given an opportunity of supplying it, he failed to do so. The application was not ""in accordance with

law"" when it was presented, and as it was not amended within the time allowed no question of ""deeming it"" to have been in accordance with the

law [Order 21, Rule 17(2)] arises.

2.

This application is dismissed with costs.