High CourtsDivision Bench(1923) 04 MAD CK 0006

(Sobhanadri) Apparao vs The Government Pleader

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 April 1923 · Citation: AIR 1924 Mad 242

HON’BLE JUDGES
Coleridge, 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

8 paragraphs · 152 words

Coleridge, J.—The petitioner applied under Rule 32 Civil Rules of Practice, for search of documents and was ordered to pay the fee

prescribed under Rule 36. He objects that there is no fee for Rule 32 and that Rule 36 applies only to Rules 33 to 35 as these sections come under

a separate heading, ""Inspection of documents by a stranger"" and that this heading covers Rules 33 to 36 and not 32 which is under the heading,

Inspection of proceeding by a party.

2.

I cannot agree for if so when he had put in his memorandum under Rule 32 there the matter would end for the Rule does not say what is to

happen thereafter. It is Rule 36 that says ""If leave is granted the following fees shall be paid and this must govern all the sections where leave is

being asked.

3.

I dismiss the petition with costs.