High CourtsDivision Bench(1934) 08 MAD CK 0034

Haddu Sahu vs Haji Zamal Noor Mahomed Saheb

Madras High Court · Decided on 10 August 1934 · Citation: AIR 1934 Mad 699 : 153 Ind. Cas. 458 : (1934) 40 LW 665

HON’BLE JUDGES
Madhavan Nair, 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 · 137 words

Madhavan Nair, J.—I agree with the lower Court''s order. The decision in Ramappa Chettiar v. Ekambara Padayachi 1924 Mad. 715 is no

doubt in favour of the appellant but at the time when the learned Judge decided that case the decision of the Full Bench in Alaga Sundaram v.

Pichuvier 1929 Mad. 757 and Arunachalam v. Veerappa Chettiar 1931 Mad. 656 did not exist. After these decisions it will be difficult to say that

an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. is not a proceeding in execution. If it is such a proceeding then Order 9, Rule 13 will not apply.

The Full Bench decisions also show that Courts have no inherent power to set aside orders of dismissal for default passed in respect of such

applications. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.