Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Dikshathar Seshagiri Iyer vs Marakathammal on 26 September, 1895
Equivalent citations: (1895) 5 MLJ 252
Author: Shephard


JUDGMENT

Shephard, J.

1. I am unable to agree with the District Judge and think that he was bound to pass an order in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The judge refused to do so on the supposition that the decision in Baghunath Das v. Badri Prasad was in point. The facts of that case were, however, different. Here, as soon as the decree of the 21st December 1891 was passed, the order ceased to have any effect and the decree was substituted for it. The decree expressly declares that the order shall have no effect and that declaration must include the matter of costs as well as any other part of the order. This being, so, there was no foundation for the application subsequently made in respect of the costs given by the order.

2. There must bean order in the terms of the prayer of the Petition 144 of 1894 and the respondent must pay the costs in this and in the District Court.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

73 queries in 0.330 seconds.