High CourtsDivision Bench(1927) 03 MAD CK 0057

Kokkan Muthiriyan vs K. Rajagopala Aiyangar

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 March 1927 · Citation: (1927) 53 MLJ 901

HON’BLE JUDGES
Wallace, 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

10 paragraphs · 241 words

Wallace, J.—Taking the facts to be that, when the plaintiff paid the costs to the defendant, the defendant received them and told the plaintiff

that he had no time to go and report satisfaction and, therefore, he must go and show the receipt to the Court and ask the Court to refrain from

issuing the warrant of arrest, I am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the lower court that a contractual obligation was thereby created which

absolved the defendant from performing the legal duty which the CPC lays on him under Order 21, Rule 2. A vakil cannot evade the duties that

rule lays on him by pleading that he told the judgment-debtor to go and report the matter on his own account. On the other hand, If plaintiff had

taken the receipt to the Court, the Court might have withdrawn the order of arrest, and thus the damages would have been reduced to a negligible

amount.

2.

I am surprised that it is argued before me that the defendant had no obligation to report to the Court satisfaction of the decree as early as

possible, and thus prevent, if possible, the issue of the warrant of arrest. This view of the defendant requires correction. I think it is sufficient if I

direct the respondent to pay the costs of the petitioner here and in the lower court. I reverse the decree of the lower court and decree accordingly.