High CourtsDivision Bench(1931) 02 MAD CK 0002

S. Vijiaraghavalu Naidu vs M. Rajamani Ayyar

Madras High Court · Decided on 11 February 1931 · Citation: AIR 1931 Mad 512 : (1931) 34 LW 528

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jackson, 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 · 133 words

Jackson, J.—This petition seems to have been admitted to see whether the learned District Munsif when he refused to receive documents

that were six months late, a delay for which there was no satisfactory explanation infringed the precept of Ramaswami Chettiar v. Tyagaraja Pillai

A.I.R.1928 Mad.516. It does not seem that Ramaswami Chettiar v. Tyagaraja Pillai A.I.R.1928 Mad.516 in any way modifies the law as laid

down in Order 13, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P.C. The rule is peremptory that documents on which a party intends to rely must be produced at the first

hearing and Rule 62 of the Civil Rules of Practice does not relieve the party of that obligation.

2.

I am not prepared to hold that the learned District Munsif has erred. The petition is dismissed with costs.