`Court` means the cv court of orgna |ursdcton to decde the

queston formng the sub|ect matter of the arbtraton f the same

had been the sub|ect matter of a sut, but does not ncude,
except for the purpose of arbtraton proceedngs under Sec.21,
any Sma Causes Court.
The Speca Marrage Act
Dstrct Court means n any area for whch there s a Cty Cv
Court that court, and n any other area the Prncpa Cv Court of
Orgna |ursdcton.
The Hndu Mnorty & Guardanshp Act, 1956
Sec.8(6): Court means Cty Cv Court or a Dstrct court or a
Court empowered under Sec.4-A of the Guardans and Wards Act.
The Hndu Adoptons and Mantenance Act
Sec.9, Expanaton (): Court means Cty Cv Court or a Dstrct
Court.
The Trust Act
Prncpa Cv Court of Orgna |ursdcton - Sectons11 (para 2),
7(b), 22, 34, 36 and 46.
Whch s the prncpa cv court havng orgna cv |ursdcton?
In moffus, there are Dstrct Munsf Court, Sub Court and Dstrct
court a havng orgna cv |ursdcton. Out of the three cv
courts, vz. Dstrct Munsf Court, Sub Court and Dstrct Court,
the ast mentoned court, .e. Dstrct Court, s the prncpa cv
court havng orgna cv |ursdcton.
In Madras Cty, the Cty Cv Court and the Hgh Court have
orgna cv |ursdcton. Between these two courts, vz. the Cty
Cv Court and the Hgh Court, the Hgh Court s the prncpa cv
court havng orgna |ursdcton.
In moffus, there are Dstrct Munsf Court, Sub Court and Dstrct
court a havng orgna cv |ursdcton. Whe the Dstrct
Munsf Court has mted pecunary orgna cv |ursdcton, the
Sub Court and the Dstrct Court have unmted orgna cv
|ursdcton. Out of the three cv courts, vz. Dstrct Munsf
Court, Sub Court and Dstrct Court, the ast mentoned court, .e.
Dstrct Court, s the prncpa cv court havng orgna cv
|ursdcton.
In Madras Cty, the Cty Cv Court and the Hgh Court have
orgna cv |ursdcton. Whe the Cty Cv Court has mted
pecunary |ursdcton, the Hgh Court has unmted pecunary
|ursdcton. Between these two courts, vz. the Cty Cv Court
and the Hgh Court, the Hgh Court s the prncpa cv court
havng orgna |ursdcton.
If the Cty Cv Court s the Prncpa Cv Court of Orgna
|ursdcton, there s no necessty at a, n the Speca Marrage
Act, to specfy `Cty Cv Court` aso, whe defnng `Dstrct
Court`. Whe defnng `Dstrct Court`, besdes the Prncpa
Cv Court of Orgna |ursdcton, the `Cty Cv Court` has aso
been specfed. If Cty Cv Court s aso a Prncpa Cv Court of
Orgna |ursdcton, then, mere menton of `Prncpa Cv Court
of Orgna |ursdcton` woud suffce, to defne `Dstrct Court`.
But, here, `Cty Cv Court` has aso been specfed. It shows
that when there s a hgher forum of court havng orgna cv
|ursdcton, than the Cty Cv Court, the atter court, vz. Cty
Cv Court, cannot be cassfed as the `Prncpa Cv Court of
Orgna |ursdcton`.
The property whch devoved on a Hndu on the death of hs
father ntestate, after the comng nto force of the Hndu
Successon Act, dd not consttute HUF property, consstng of
hs own branch ncudng hs sons. (1982) 138 IT 673 (MP)

The property whch devoved upon hers mentoned n Cass I
of Schedue u/s.8 consttuted the absoute propertes and hs
sons have no rghts by brth n such propertes.
(1986) 3 S.C.C. 567
(1983) 144 ITR 18 (AP)
(1978) 114 ITR 523 (Mad)

U/s. 8, the property of father who des ntestate devoves on
hs son n hs ndvdua capacty and not as kartha of hs own
famy (1968)67 I.T.R. 164 (A)
AIR 1979 Mad 1 FB ?
Hndu father ded, eavng hs two daughters, the younger beng
a mnor. Eder daughter sod father`s property, ncudng the
share of mnor sster. Mnor sster on attanng ma|orty sod her
share (aready sod by her sster) n awfu manner. That s
suffcent to show that mnor has repudated the transfeer made
by her sster as de facto guardan/manager. The earer sae by
mnor`s sster s vod. The exstence or otherwse of ega
necessty s not reevant n the case of such nvad transfer.
Further, the property n the hands of father was not a `|ont
famy property`. Ths s not a case of aenaton of mnor`s
nterest n a `|ont famy property`. Sec.11 of the Hndu Mnorty
and Guardanshp Act prohbts the aenaton of the mnor`s
nterest. Sec.11 ncudes a types of propertes of a mnor and
no excepton s provded n the secton. VIII (2001) SLT 111 -
Supreme Court DB- Madhegowda (D) by L.Rs. vs. Ankegowda (D)
by L.Rs.
2001-L.W.I 700 S. |agadeesan |. Madras Hgh Court
Mohanra| vs. Vaach Amma and others
When property s acqured by father and t devoves on hs ega
hers after hs death, so far as mae hers are concerned, t w
assume the character of |ont famy n the case of ntestate.
Sec.8 of the Hndu Mnorty and Guardanshp Act has no
appcaton. No permsson of Court s necessary, n such a case.
When once the father acqured the property, after hs death, the
property devoves on hs ega hers. So far as the mae hers are
concerned, naturay, t w assume the character of the `|ont
famy property` n the case of ntestate. When a Hndu father
ded, eavng sons as we as the femae hers, who are aso
entted to nhert |onty wth the sons to the father`s property
under the Hndu Successon Act 1956, the nterest of the mnor
daughters n the property eft by the father whether the property
of the father`s separate property or the father`s nterest n the
|ont famy property, w be the undvded nterest n the |ont
famy property, and n respect of those propertes Sec.6 of the
Hndu Mnorty and Guardanshp Act has no appcaton. As
such, there s no need to get the permsson of the court under
Sec.8 of the H.M.G.Act.
A Hndu Coparcenary s narrower than a Hndu Undvded Famy.
A Hndu |ont famy conssts of a persons neay descended
from a common ancestor and ncudes ther wfe and unmarred
daughter. A Hndu Coparcenary s much narrower body than the
|ont famy. It ncudes ony those persons who acqure by brth
an nterest n the |ont or coparcenary property, these beng
sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the hoder of |ont
property for the tme beng. Therefore there may be a |ont
Hndu famy consstng of a snge mae member and wdows of a
deceased coparceners. A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1523
Successon to coparcenary property:
So far as a Mtakshara co-parcenary property s concerned, when
a person havng an ntereset n the sad property des, hs
nterest n the property sha devove by survvorshp, on the
survvng members of the co-parcenery, and not n accordance
wth the Hndu Successon Act--Sec.6(1) of the Hndu Successon
Act. But ths poston dffers, when a person des, eavng behnd
hm, hs daughter. In such a case, hs nterest n the co-
parcenary property devoves, ony under Sec.8 of the Hndu
Successon Act, and not by survvorshp--Provso to Sec.6(1) of
the Hndu Successon Act.
Here n the case on hand, the vendor`s father had daughters and
he ded ony after the commencement of the Hndu Successon
Act. So hs ntereset n the co-parcenary property devoved, ony
under Sec.8of the Hndu Successon Act, on hs sons and
daughters, and accordngy, hs sons (ncudng the vendor) took
the property and parttoned amongst themseves.
When a property devoves under Sec.8 of the Hndu Successon
Act, t devoves, ony on Cass-I hers, vz. sons and daughters,
and not on a son`s son. Grand-sons and grand-daughters are
not ncuded n Cass-I hers. When a property devoves under
Sec.8 of the Hndu Successon Act, on a Cass-I her, vz. son or
daughter, t becomes the persona and absoute property of the
sad Cass-I her.
(1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 567 (Commssoner of Weath
Tax, Kanpur and others vs. Chander Sen and others)
"Under the Hndu Law, the moment a son s born, he gets a
share n the father`s property and becomes part of the
coparcenary. Hs rght accrues to hm not on the death of of the
father or nhertance from the father but wth the very fact of hs
brth. Normay, therefore, the father gets a property from
whatever source, from the grandfather or from any other source,
be t separated property or not, hs son shoud have a share n
that and t w become part of the |ont famy of hs son and
grandson and other members who form |ont Hndu famy wth
hm. But ths poston has snce been affected by Sec.8 of the
Hndu Successon Act. Snce the Preambe to the Act reterates
that theAct s to `amend` and codfy the aw and Secton 4
thereof makes t cear that one shoud ook to the Act n case of
doubt, and not to the pre-exstng Hndu Law, the express words
of Secton 8 of the Hndu Successon Act woud preva over the
aforesad genera aw. When therefore, son nherts the property
n the stuaton contempated by Secton 8 of the Hndu
Successon Act, he does not take t as karta of hs own undvded
famy, but takes t n hs ndvdua capacty. The Scheude to
the Hndu Successon Act referred to n Secton 8(a) ndcates
hers n Cass I and ony ncudes sons and does not ncude son`s
son but does ncude son of a pre-deceased son."
Though the orgna character of the property was `co-
parcenery`, when the same devoves under the Provso to
Sec.6(1) of the Hndu Successon Act, the sad character
changes, and t becomes the absoute and persona property, of
the person on whom t devoves. Here, when the property
devoved from the Vendor`s father to the Vendor, t was under
the Provso to Sec.6(1) of the Hndu Successon Act, snce
theVendor`s father had daughters aso, and as such, the
property whch fe to theshare of theVendor became the
persona and absoute property of the Vendor.
By operaton of the Provso to Sec.6(1) of the Hndu Successon
Act as above, the od co-parcenary system under the Hndu Law
s dsappearng graduay. See the commentary by T.P.
Gopaakrshnan on Successon Laws of Inda 1970 Edton page
35
"Yet another change made by the Hndu Successon Act s the
consequent effect on the Mtakshara |ont famy. Whe the Act
has professedy eft t unaffected, the resut of the power
conferred by the Hndu Successon Act upon a coparcener to
dspose of hs nterest n the coparcenery property, ntervvos or
by w, and the provsons for successon to the property of a
mae coparcener dyng eavng femae hers of Cass I under the
Act, s to brng about the gradua extncton of the Mtakshara
|ont famy system, n due course of tme."
Further, the od system of Hndu Law sha cease to have effect,
wherever provson s made n the Hndu Successon Act -- Sec.4
of the Hndu Successon Act. Over rdng effect.
Therefore, when the Vendor got the property, t was hs persona
and absoute property and he was havng every rght, to dea
wth the same, wth powers of aenaton.
Or.22, R.10A CPC. Appea - Death of 1st respondent n an appea
pendng before Hgh Court - Memo fed by counse for
respondents 3 and 4 brngng the fact to the notce of court -
Faure of appeants to take steps - Hed as Respondents 2 to 4
woud not represent the entre estate of deceased 1st
respondent, appea s abe to be dsmssed as abated as
aganst 1st respondent. If appea s proceeded as aganst the
other respondents t woud resut n confctng decree and hence
entre appea has to be dsmssed
2002-2 L.W.745 N.V. Baasubramanan |. Madras Hgh Court
Socetes regstered under the Socetes Regstraton Act 1860
are not corporatons aggregate and cannot therefore sue or be
sued n ther names but may sue or be sued n the name of the
Presdent, Charman, Prncpa Secretares or Trustees as may be
determned by the rues of socety (see Sec.6). The tte of the
sut shoud shoud be somewhat as foows: "AB, Presdent of the
Arya Sabha, UP, a Socety regstered under the Socetes
Regstraton Act, 1860." AIR 1962 SC 458
Co-operatve Socetes regstered wth the Regstrar of Co-
operatve Socetes of the State can sue and be sued n ther own
names.
2000 TLN| 65 Advocate reportng no nstructons. Court shoud
ssue notce to the concerned party.
Inchoate pronote - Executon admtted - Consderaton not fed
up - Deft. has gven prma face authorty to hoder to compete
t - 2002-1 L.W. 541
9 Mysore Law |ourna 476 Mundappa vs. Veerabadrah
Pronote - Sgnature can be made at any part of the document.
No canceaton of nstrument s necessary and no C.F. to be
pad when pantff s not a party to nstrument ILR 1940 Mad.73
1988-2 L.W. 161 Srnvasan |. Market vaue of mmovabe
property captasaton method 1971-I M.L.|. 214 Promssory
note payabe otherwse than on demand cananot be vadated
by payng defct stamp duty.

M.L.|. 1980-I 248 Ratnam |. In a sut under Or.37 CPC., uness
eave s granted, the defendant s not entted to fe any
appcaton for any other reef.
91 Law Weeky Part 31 page 117 (1978)
Sut on behaf of an unregstered socety by ts Presdent or
Secretary not mantanabe.
The money was not advanced by hm (Presdent) from hs
pocket. The Commttee s a mere assocaton of some
gentemen for a speca purpose. The money beonged to a the
members of the Commttee and not to the Presdent. He s not
therefore entted to the money excusvey. He has not been
gvena power of attorney by the other members to nsttute the
sut on ther behaf aso. Therefore the sut by the Presdent of
an unregstered socety s not mantanabe wthout power of
attorney gven by a the members of the Commttee.
There s no document to show that the pantff was the duy
consttuted agent of the credtors. None of the persons who are
aeged to have gven the authorsaton etters has been
examned to prove the same. Under such crcumstances, a the
fnancers coud not have authorsed the pantff to act as ther
agent and get the mortgage by depost of tte deeds n hs
favour.
2000 (I) CTC 73
Devery of documents of tte deeds by the 1st defendant to the
pantff who s nether a credtor nor an agent of the credtors
woud not n any way create a mortgae even though there may
be a memorandum by depost of tte deeds as found n
Ex.P.1.Hence the mortgage deed s not vad and enforceabe n
aw.
Propretory concern s not a ega and |ursdctona entty and
compant aganst propretory concern s not mantanabe
2001 (2) TNL| 302; (1992) L.W. Cr. 347; (1996) Cr.L.|. 3099;
(1999) L.W.Cr.405); (1999) L.W.Cr.395)
Form No.32 ssued by the Regstrar of Companes s a pubc
document
2001 (2) TNL| 290
Undvded shares of dfferent owners - Sod - Tota consderaton
to be taken for consderaton - pre emptve purhcase
(2001) 166 CTR Reports (Supreme Court FB)
Date of payment s date of cheque and s not the date of handng
over cheque for the purpose of mtaton - Sec.19 of the
Lmtaton Act - AIR 1967 SC 1118
Acknowedgment of payment - n wrtng - AIR 1957 SC 477
Immovabe property - Deed - Attestaton does not amount to
acceptance of contents - Further proof necessary
2003(1) T.L.N.|. 173 DB

Lmtaton - Date of order - Date on whch the order s actuay
communcated to the person affected by the order AIR 1961 SC
1500 DB
Lmtaton - S. 138 N.I. Act In case of return of notce, the date of
endorsement by the postman or messenger - 1995(2) MWN (Cr)
page 231 B. Kannan vs. Kothandan
When a person has sgned and devered to another a paper
stamped n accordance wth aw, the hoder of the nchoate
stamped nstrument s entted to f up bank and negotate.
Hoder has authorty to make or compete the nstrument as a
negotabe one. He s authorsed to f up even the contents.
Burden shfts on the defendant to prove that subsequenty the
contents were fed up, and that he has not borrowed money .
2002-3 L.W. 692 K.Gnanaprakasam |. Samkannu Nacker vs.
Sgaman
Second Appea - on date of hearng appcant and counse were
absent - Hgh Court dsposa of the Second Appea on merts -
unwarranted - Not proper - Ought to have dsmssed the appea
for non-prosecuton - Or.41, R.11 (1) & (2) CPC
2002 (1) TLN| (SC) 31
AIR 1953 Madras 767 = 1953-I M.L.|. 825 In Summary Sut,
under Order 37, Cty Cv Court to whch Order 37 appes has
no power to condone the deay n fng and obtanng eave to
defend suts fed under Rue 3 of Order 37 CPC. When a perod
of mtaton has been affxed for the purpose of dong an act
or takng a proceedng under the statute of Lmtaton Act or
under any other enactment, Courts do not possess the power to
extend the tme uness and unt such a power s specfcay
conferred on them.
Vested remander n mmovabe property s present nterest
n property and can be sod --AIR 1947 Bom. 185
--AIR 1937 Pat. 163

There s no doctrne of aw n Inda whch prevents a
benefcary wth hs nterest by way of mortgage. though t s
true enough that n Inda, such an nterest s not techncay
regarded as an equtabe estate.
--ILR (1940)2 Ca. 436 (PC)
--AIR 1940 RC 134
--45 CWN 253

Summary sut-ony copy of pant and annexure thereto has to
be furnshed to defendants-furnshng of copes of documents
whch are bass of sut, not necessary-not furnshng of
same-defendant woud not be entted to eave to defend on ths
ground --Pun|ab & Snd Bank vs. Seth Roer Four Ms
A.I.R. 1988 Deh 308

1988-1 Law Weeky 574 Lucky Eectrca Stores vs. Ramesh
Stee House (Mr. M.N. Chandurkar, C.|.)
Under Cause (b) of R.1(2), a summary sut can be fed to
recover a qudated demand payabe n money. A wrtten
contract or a contract n wrtng need not aways be a contract
sgned by both partes. Sec.44 of the Court Fees Act. Payment
of court fee for future mesne profts. AIR 1967 S.C.155
Gopaakrshna Pa & others vs. Meenaksh Ava and others -
Wth regard to future mesne profts, the pantff has no cause of
acton on the date of nsttuton of the sut and t s not possbe
for hm to pead ths cause of acton or to vaue t, or to pay court
fees thereon at the tme of nsttuton of the sut. More over, he
can obtan reef n respect of future cause of acton, Ony n a
sut n whch provsons of Or.20, R.12 CPC. appy. But n a sut
to whch the provsons of Or.20, R.12 CPC. appy, the court
has dscretonary power to pass a decree drectng enqury nto
future profts and the court may grant a genera reef
though t s not specfcay asked for n the pant.
As hed n Ramcharan Sngh vs. Dharohar Kuer A.I.R. 1954
Patna 175, obtanng of probate of a W s ony a rue of
evdence and snce the appeate s takng steps to obtan
probate of the w, and the w has not so far been probated,
the same coud not be produced n court. The earned Tra
|udge has faed to note that as hed n the sad |udgment of
Patna Hgh Court, foowed by the decson of the |udca
Commttee n Venkata Subbamma vs. Ramayya (A.I.R.1932
P.C. 92), under Sec.211 of the Indan Successon Act, the
property of the Testator heren has aready vested n the
appeant as Executor of the W and he need not - and shoud
not - wat unt the grant of probate, to nsttute or contnue the
proceedngs reatng to the estate of the Testator. Further, as
ponted out n the above referred |udgment, grant of probate
does not create the representatve character of the Executor
and such a character s created by the statute, vz. under
Sec.211 of the Indan Successon Act. Therefore, the tra court
ought not to have, n any way, dsmssed the appcaton fed
by the appeant heren, for non-producton of ether the
unprobated w or the probated copy of the w, nasmuch as
the pantff s takng steps to obtan probate of the w.

The one substanta dfference between the Probate and
Admnstraton Act of 1871 and the Indan Successon Act of
1925 s that under the former Act, the takng out of probate was
not compusory.

Ths dfference does not exst between the Indan Successon
Act of 1865 and that of 1925.

Dvson Bench of our Hgh Court, comprsng of Ther Lordshps
K.A.Swam C.|. and AR. Lakshmanan |., rendered n S.P.
Padmavath vs. State of Tamnadu (1997-2 L.W. 579) - Hed that
n respect of a sae deed executed pursuant to a decree for
specfc performance, the stamp duty and regstraton charges
have to be coected, as mentoned n the agreement for sae.
1999 T.L.N.|. page 73 K. Sampath |.
S.50 CPC. Decree obtaned aganst some of ega hers - Others
not made partes - Suffcent representatons - Bnds a - Ony
procedura 1999 T.L.N.|. page 88 S.S.Subraman |.
Wrong provson of aw gven - Duty of court to moud chef The
Code consodates and amends the aw reatng to the
procedure of the cv courts. The ob|ect of the consodaton s
to brng together and make up-to-date the statutory aw reatng
to any partcuar sub|ect, so that t may serve as a usefu Code
appcabe to the crcumstances exstng at the tme when
the consodatng Act s passed: ILR 22 Ca 788

Ths Code s ntended many to reguar procedure n cv
courts, t s not ordnary ntended to create new rghts or take
away exstng ones. AIR 1932 Lah. 401
Ths Code deas wth procedura matters , that s, wth matters
reatng to the machnery for the enforcement of substantve
rghts as contra-dstngushed from the substantve rghts
themseves. For substantve rghts, one shoud ook to statute
aw or genera prncpes of aw. AIR 1964 Ra|. 140

Document fxng a term of 3 years, and ether party gven
berty to termnate the ease by gvng three months` notce.
Hed: t amounts to tenancy-at-w and t cannot be sad to be
ease for three years requrng regstraton. It s admssbe
though not regstered.
2000-I L.W. 494 -- Sengappan vs. Anumbatha Veda Vnayagar
Tempe, by Heredtary Trustee.
Dvson Bench of our Hgh Court, comprsng of Ther Lordshps
K.A.Swam C.|. and AR. Lakshmanan |., rendered n S.P.
Padmavath vs. State of Tamnadu (1997-2 L.W. 579) - Hed that
n respect of a sae deed executed pursuant to a decree for
specfc performance, the stamp duty and regstraton charges
have to be coected, as mentoned n the agreement for sae.

AIR 1961 Madras 388 (A.K.S. Muhammed Sutan Rowther and C
vs. Manckam Chettar), wheren t has been hed @8 that the
payments made from tme to tme shoud be approprated n
the order of tme of deveres AIR 1982 Cacutta 386 (M/s. West
Benga Decoratng C vs. M/s. Damodar Das Daga), and
contended that a sut for vaue of goods sod and devered
does not come wthn the ambt of Order 37 CPC.

Sma Cause Court Advocate Fee Rues
5000-10%
5000-10000 - 5%
10001-20000 - 3%
20001-50000 - 2%
500001-100000 - 1%
100001 - 1/2%
Revson under Art.227 of Consttuton of Inda - by a person not
party to sut mantanabe - decree obtaned by agent aganst
prncpa hed cousve - set asde - decree obtaned by
suppressng materas and wthout ndugng necessary partes
1998-I L.W. 372

Sarkar's Law of Evdence Tenth Edton page 645-- 1991-1 L.W.
256
Defendant dead after |udgment by tra court. Appea can be
fed straghtway by L.Rs. of deceased defednant.
See aso M.L.|. Reports (Supreme Court) page 27
C.A.N606/78 Shv Dass and others vs. Smt. Devk and others
Respondent ded after concuson of aruguments and before
|udgment.
Statutory tenant = Hodng over tenant
AIR 1972 SC 2526
AIR 1965 SC 414
Lcence - property remans n ega possesson of owner AIR
1965 SC 610 = (1964) 6 SCR 642

Sae Deed to be decared as nu and vod CF payabe under
Sec.40(1) of C.F.Act
AIR 1956 Mad.176

1943 I M.L.|. 316
1954 (2) ML| 400
AIR 1954 Mad.1126

1944 I M.L.| f canceaton asked for, C.F. to be pad.

192(1) of Companes Act Regstraton of resouton by C
(Agreement) 192(4) , 124,
124, 130 Charge Regstraton Future damages for use and
occupaton/mesne profts (future) -- no cause of acton yet
court can grant decree under Or.20, R.12(1)(c) r/w. Or.20
R.12 n fna decree (dscretonary) AIR 1967 SC 155

Future damages for use and occupaton ony for three years
Or.20, R.12(1)(c)() CPC.
I - L.W. 443
AIR 1977 CRL. 319 AIR 1963 SC 1405

Advocate suppresson facts frauduenty and obtanng orders -
Though tenderng apoogy shoud not go unpunshed - 1987
Cr.L.|. 1038

No precedent s not bar for contempt AIR 1972 SC 2466

Power of Attorney n favour of companant fng at the tme of
nsttuton of compant Sec.138 NI Act - must 1994 I L.W. Cr.
337

1988-2 L.W. 161 Srnvasan |. Market vaue of mmovabe
property captasaton method 1971-I M.L.|. 214 Promssory
note payabe otherwse than on demand cananot be vadated
by payng defct stamp duty.

If an appcaton for copy of decree s made after the expry of
the mtaton perod for fng appea the perod taken by the
court for ssung copy shoud not be excuded under the
provson of Sec. 12 of the Lmtaton Act 1993 TLN| 280
Srnvasan |.

1961-I M.L.|. 288 Lmtaton n respect of vaue of goods sod
starts, ony from the date of devery and not from the date of
any part payment.

If a recept contans addtona words mportng a promse to
pay the money, then the doct. woud not be chargeabe as
recept but as a pronote or agreement.
3 Bom. L.R. 89
36 Mad. 370

One snge person carryng on busness n the name of a frm
cannot sue n the name of the frm 1959 | & K 118
AIR V 46 C 47

Where a sut aganst a person carryng on busness n a name
other than hs own, n the stye of a frm was nsttuted and
decreed. Hed: the deft. coud not mpugn the decree as a
nuty. The executng court coud substtute the defendant`s
name for the name and stye of hs busness.
AIR 1981 Orssa 141

Decree aganst frm s decree aganst a partners 1958 A 176

AIR 1985 Mad. I Davd Annusamy
|ursdcton mantanabe even f mmovabe property stuate
outsde the |ursdcton - Mortgage.

Sec.92 CPC Petton pendng - Or.39 R.1 CPC. can be ordered
1993-2 L.W. 308 DB
Or.9, R.9 CPC w come nto pay, ony when there s defaut n
the appearance of the pantff or the appn. and now when
there s defaut n the payment of the amount drected to be
pad, as a condton for resotraton. 1993-2 L.W. 321 Abdu
Had

Where a sut was based on a cheque ssued by pantff and
encashed and utsed by defendant - hed: t was a sut for
recovery of a oan and not a sut on cheque
AIR 1982 Deh 590

Recovery of rent on the bass of ease deed - trabe under
Or.37
AIR 1983 Kar. 1

Where a memorandum of appea, returned for rectfcaton of
certan defects, s rectfed after deay.
Hed: condonaton of such deay w be governed by Sec. 151
and not by Sec.148 CPC. or S.5 of the Lmtaton Act. ILR (1979)
I Mad. 55
91 Mad. L.W. 530

Where a sut was stayed sne de and one of the partes ded.
Hed, the appn. for substtuton of L.Rs. made on the revva of
the sut woud be aowed, as no sut woud be sad to have been
pendng durng the stay.
AIR 1984 De. 138
64 Pun|. LR. 454
When an agent sung on behaf of an undscosed prncpa des,
pendng sut, the sut after death of the agent, shoud be
contnued, f t can be contnued at a by the agent`s
representatve and not by the prncpa.
17 ML| 116

If a pantff sues and des after hs sut has been dsmssed, hs
L.R. may appea from the decree wthout an appcaton to be
brought on record n hs pace.
40 PLR 767

The brngng on record of a L.R. of a deceased pantff must be
entted to the purpose of carryng on the sut and cannot have
the effect of conferrng any rght to hershp to a property.
AIR 1976 H.P. 174

ILR 41 Mad 442
42 IC 86
17 IC 101
L.R. not camant her Successon Certfcate s necessary to fe
E.p. and not to contnue E.P.
AIR 1988 AP 314

Sarkar`s Law on CPC 1992 8th Edton page 935 Vo.I
1987 H.P. para 5 Successon Certfcate not necessary Decree n
favour of deceased pantff - nuty - subsequenty cannot be
vadated by amendment - sut must be treated as pendng.
AIR 1958 Ca. 691
AIR 1962 A 541

Lega rep. of a deceased deft. can seek to set asde an exparte
decree aganst the deft. by reason of Sec.146 CPC.
(1970) I An.W.R. 240
AIR 1954 Mys. 32
1981 A L.|. 666

Appea AIR 1958 SC 394

Rea owner can fe appea AIR 1940 Mad. 6 To enabe a person
to take a proceedng under Sec.146 CPC. as a person camng
under a party to a tgaton, t s not necessary he shoud have
been brought on record as such.
AIR 1947 Mad. 34 DB

Or. 22 does not appy to the case of death of pantff after
decree and of hs L.R. wshng to appea ILR Mad 236

Where deft. s dead at the tme of nsttuton of sut, the pantff
cannot proceed wth the sut by substtutng hers - sut nuty.
ILR 31 Mad. 86
AIR 1958 Ca. 681
AIR 1964 Mys. 293
AIR 1971 Goa 54

A mere doubt about the egbty of the petr. to receve
compensaton n the absence of an other contendng party
ayng cam to the whoe or part of compensaton w not
consttute a dspute under Sec.30 of L.A. Act. The coector has
no |ursdcton to transfer the matter to the |udge AIR 1977 Gau.
47

Tenant`s rght under Sec.9 cannot be taken away by the
dsmssa of the e|ecment sut. The court shoud dspose of
the petton u/s.9 qute apart, from the manner n whch the
e|ectment suts have been termnated.
AIR (37) 1950 Mad. 759

Sec.9 petton w e, ony n a sut n e|ectment, and not n a
RCOP for evcton 1993 TLN| 322
The term `descrpton` ncudes, age, father`s name, caste,
etc.
7 ML| 81

Pant defectve - Opportunty to be gven to cure defect -
faute - dsmssa Or.7, R.3 CPC. or re|ecton
AIR 1931 Mad. 175
AIR 1935 Mad 389 DB

Where a pant was returned for amendment and was
amended wthout notce to the other sde and the amendments
were a mportant, the order was set asde and case was
remanded for tra on orgna pant.
1939 A.M.L.|. 112(1)
CPC. by S. Venkataraman N6 R17 page 549 Amendment of pant
can be aowed before admttng the pant under 7, R.9 before
returnng the pant under 7, R.10 CPC. or before re|ectng the
pant under Or.7, R.11
AIR 1963 Manpur 43
AIR 1971 Deh 282
Amendment - fresh sut mtaton A contract of guarantee
contaned n a petton to court was hed chargeabe wth
stamp duty as an agreement n addton to court fee pad as for
the petn.
AIR 1926 Ca. 877

Agreement n a etter - need not be stamped 13 Mad 255 -
contrary vew Shoud be stamped 17 Ca. 548
Dstncton between annexures and the sut documents s cear
as ad down n 1968 SC 1709

A contract of ndemnty contaned n an nstrument whch s
mped by aw or s ancary to the man purpose s not
separatey chargeabe wth duty as an ndemnty bond. A
covenant reatng to a warranty of tte ncuded n a
conveyance s not chargeabe separatey as an ndemnty bond
AIR 1977 Mad. 44

There can be vadaton, ony of the orgna, when t s
unstamped or nsuffcenty stamped. It s we setted tht a
copy of an nstrument cannot be vadated AIR 1962 SC 110

Orgna nsuffcenty stamped and not admssbe n evdence.
Its certfed copy aso s not admssbe n evdence.
AIR 1955 Ca.56
AIR 1951 Pepsu 24
AIR 1962 SC 110 (orgna ost)

A pronote whch s aso a bond beng attested by a wtness
and not expressed to be payabe to order or bearer, s abe to
duty as for a bond and s admssbe n evdence on payment of
duty and penaty as for a bond.
before amendment of Act
AIR 1945 142
The document started wth the words `on demand I promse to
pay` but subsequenty sad that the prncpa sum wth nterest
woud be pad wthn three years. Ths nconsstency was taken
as showng that t was not ntended to be used as a negotabe
nstrument and t was aowed to be vadated on payment of
penaty.
AIR 1941 Nag. 1

A b or pronote need not be attested. If t s attested by a
wtness and s not payabe to order, t w fa under the
defnton of a bond as gven n the Indan Stamp Act, and w
therefore be chargabe wth duty as a bond.
ILR 8 Mad.87 FB

Aso see 1944-II ML| 180

Where on a pronote by pr. debtor, the surety had wrtten
`repayment guaranteed by me` The court hed that t was a
contract of guarantee (1917) 44 Ca. 978
39 IC 705
21 CWN 482
A recta that the tte deeds have been deposted as coatera
securty woud not affect the character of the nstrument as a
pronote. In ths case, the nstrument though a pronote may
aso be chargeabe under
Art.6
3 ML| 225
(1835) A & E 386
Stamp Act page 95

Under Sec.40 CF Act. Vaue as on date of pant
(1976) I M.L.|. 9

As mentoned n the document 1939 (1) M.L.|. 702
Page 172 C.F. Act

Decaraton of an order demandng payment of tax, etc. - sut to
be vaued - not advoerum C.F. 25(d) 1990 TLN| 107
99 Law Weeky 740

Equtabe mortgage - Memorandum evdencng depost of tte
deeds - It s merey evdence of past transacton and not
dscosure of soe bargan n praesent - hence regn. not
requred
AIR 1977 Mad. 238

In order to requre regstraton of a mortgage by depost of
tte deeds, the document must contan a the essentas of the
transacton and one essenta s that the tte deeds must be
deposted by vrtue of the nstrument or acknowedge an earer
depost of tte deeds and say further that the tte deeds sha
be hed as a securty on the sad mortgage.
AIR 1970 SC 659

Order of attachment before |udgment woud not become
neffectve after passng of decree permttng |D to pay decreta
amount n nstaments. That order whch was ndependent order
woud survve uness set asde n a manner known to aw.
Or.38, R.5 -- AIR 1977 Mad. 339

Pronote - payment n nstaments - payabe otherwse than on
demand - nsuffcenty stamped - nadmssbe AIR 1977 Mad.
340

1) Mutua, open and current account - baances shoud have
tted from one sde to another - at east at one pont of tme 2)
Payment AIR 1977 Mad. 56

No contract between partes regardng payment of nterest -
pantff s entted to cam nterest at 6% p.a. under Sec.1 of
Interest Act 32/1839 AIR 1977 Mad 56

See Sec.80 of the Negotabe Instruments Act.

An Arbtrator can |ust fe the award n the court, wthout any
appn. but the act of fng must be hs or on hs behaf AIR 1953
SC 313 = 1953(1) ML| 841

AIR 1979 Mad. 1 FB

Notce to a partes n I.As. Rue 32 CRP Or.9, R.9(2) CPC
1980 - I M.L.|. 278
1992 - 2 L.W. Part 13 page 467
U/s. 35 of the Stamp Act, an unstamped document cannot be
admtted n evdence for a coatera purpose.
Secton enacts that t sha not be admtted n evdence `for
any purpose` 1946-I M.L.|. 295 (PC)

1953 A.L.|. 312 = AIR 1953 AL. 350
Provso to Sec.35 of the Stamp Act makes unstamped recept
admssbe not generay but as aganst the person by whose
faut t s unstamped, on payment of the penaty of one rupee
(page 291) Stamp Act AWN 1902 72 FB If a document s
nsuffcenty stamped, the date stamp shoud not be apped to
the stamps on t, nor shoud the stamps be canceed by
punchng out the fgure head. The doct. shoud be returned
to the party concerned for resubmsson propery stamped.
--Rues under the Court Fees Act Part II Chapter I
Cv Rues of Practce and Crcuar Orders Vo.I, page 222

1984 AIR Mad 75 = 1984 ML| 148 AB| condtona attachment -
vad Partton
1928 C. 705
Deed merey recordng a famy arrangement and contanng an
ack. of the recept of a share of property need not be stamped
and regstered
Where a person executes a Power of Attorney n favour of a
awyer, t s not that he cannot appear n person before a court
of aw. - 1954 Assam 23 (25) - Unon of Inda vs. The Bank of
the East Ltd. & others
AIR V 41 C5
ILR (1953) 5 Assam 115 DB

Appontment of a `soe agent` does not precude the prncpa
from actng hmsef n the busness of the agency wthout beng
accountabe to the agent. Ony an express prohbton woud
have that effect.
--Contract Act Poack & Mua on Contract Act and
Specfc Reef Acts X Edton 1986 page 844
(1931) I KB 253
(1934) 2 KB 436
(1941) AC 108
(1953) CPL 652 CA

Whenever a court passes an order drectng the preservaton of
`status quo` t shoud by the same order state n unequvoca
terms what the `status quo` s, otherwse, the court w be
fang to to ts duty.
--Srnvasan |. 1988-2 L.W. Part 13 342

Sec.19(b) of Hndu Successon Act
Tenancy n common -
Ths nterest s created where two or more persons have
ndvdua possesson but dstnct nterest estates n any sub|ect
of property, n equa or unequa shares and ether by the same
or by dfferent ttes. On the death of a tenant-n-common, hs
share goes to hs representatve.

|ont tenancy - (co-parcener)
An estate hed by two or more, |onty wth an equa rght n a,
to share n the en|oyment of the and durng ther ves. On
the death of one, hs rght accrues to others by survvorshp. In
ths tenancy, there are four unts, vz. of possesson, nterest,
tte and tme.
In a per strpes dstrbuton, a group represents a deceased
ancestor. The group takes the proportona share to whch the
deceased ancestor woud have been entted f st vng.
For exampe, a man ded ntestate; hs wfe predeceased hm. He
had four chdren, three of whom are st vng at the tme of hs
death. The deceased chd had three chdren, a st vng.
These three grandchdren w share equay n one-fourth of
ther grandfather's estate, the share the deceased parent woud
have taken f st ave. The three vng chdren w aso each
receve one-fourth of the estate.
Per strpes dffers from per capta, n whch an equa share s
gven to each of a number of persons who a stand n equa
degree of reatonshp to the deceased.
In a per capta dstrbuton, an equa share of an estate s gven
to each her, a of whom stand n equa degree of reatonshp
from a decedent. For exampe, a woman ded ntestate, that s,
wthout a w. Her husband and three chdren predeceased her,
and her ony vng hers are her ten grandchdren. These
grandchdren w take per capta. In other words, each
grandchd w receve one-tenth of the estate.
Per capta dffers from per strpes, where persons do not nhert
n ther ndvdua capacty but take as part of a group
represented by a deceased ancestor coser n ne to the
decedent.
Power of Trustee to se
Uness trustees are gven express power to se, mortgage,
exchange, or partton, by the nstrument of trust or by some
statutory provson or by orders of court, t woud not be
competent for them to do so The norma duty of the trustee s
to preserve the property n spece and not to convert t. The
genera authorty of a trustee woud not therefore ncude a
rght to se the trust property whch must be decded from the
nvestment of trust or from drectons of a court.
ILR 1952 Bom. 266
AIR 1952 Bom 106
53 BLR 883
u/s. 34 Petton to be fed for sae of trust property ILR
(1954) Mad 537 DB

Where the trust estate conssted of house propertes was under
a set back due to need for urgent repars at heavy costs, so that
t woud be more prudent to se them than to rehabtate them,
t was hed that n the absence of a power of sae express or
mped conferred by the nstrument of trust, the trustee
must nvoke the extra ordnary |ursdcton of the court to
sancton a sae.
43 Bom 519
Bom LR 41
49 IC 882

Sec.36 of the Trusts Act Sec.34

Page 251, 259 N. Suryanarayana Iyer`s Indan Trusts Act
1882 IV Edton 1992

Sec.34 of the Trusts Act provdes better forum a court, superor
to the court of sub |udge Where a trustee enters nto an
agreement for sae of trust property there beng nothng n the
trust deed expressy authorsng hm to do so, dspute
regardng hs rght to do so has to be referred to Court under
Sec.34 of Trusts Act and not to court u/s.90 CPC.
AIR 1982 Ca. 14 DB

Prncpa Cv Court of Orgna |ursdcton superor to sub court
Decree obtaned on behaf of an do - subsequent creaton
of trust s a prvate transacton affectng do - Decree can be
executed ether by the orgna Decree Hoder or by the
Presdent and the Trustee actng together under the Trust
Deed after takng steps under Or.21, R.16 AIR 1978 A. (1)
AIR 1935 A. 1001

AIR 1954 Patna 175
-Bequeath under W vests wth Executor, mmedatey on the
death of Testator. Executor need not wat t obtanng probate -
whch s must See AIR 1959 rA| 243 (|apur Successon Act)
1955-II M.L.|. Reports 27
Supreme Court - Respondent des after arguments and before
deverng |udgment n the appea. L.R. need not be brought on
record, n that appea. It s enough that L.Rs. of the deceased
are mpeaded eo nomnee, n the further appea proceedngs, to
represent the estate of the deeased. The date when the pantff
gets the knowedge of the defendants not reevant under
Art.177 (now Art. 120 r/w Or.22, R. 4 CPC.)
AIR 1964 SC 215

Under Or.22, R.4(3) CPC abatement of sut as aganst
defendant s automatc and no separate order s necessary for
decarng AIR 1976 Goa 11

Or.22, R.3 appcabe for brngng on record L.Rs. of deceased
appcant
AIR 1979 Ca. 182
AIR 1980 SC 64
AIR 1978 De. 129

Sec.44 of C.F. Act Cam of future mesne
profts/damages s based on future cause of acton In vew
of Or.20, R.12 CPC. the sad reef can be camed n the
present sut but need not be vaued and court fee pad now. AIR
1967 SC 155

Vakaath and appearance are fed for a partcuar court. It s
for a sut or proceedng n that court, the advocate s authorsed
and obges hmsef to appear If a matter was to be transferred
from one court to a totay dstnct court, t appears that the
authorty gven to advocate woud come to an end.

AIR 1977 Bom. 36

Transfer of a sut woud not nvove the coecton of extra court
fee evabe n the transferee court or refund of excess court
fee, accordng to the scae prescrbed for the transferee court.
AIR 1955 Ca. 258

1991-I L.W. 256
After dsposa of sut and before fng of appea, f defendant
des, when appea s sought to be fed, cause tte to be
amended.

One of the qudators actng on behaf of a regstered company
ded. The pantff was st ave. The appcaton for addng
the name of the successor qudator n the tte of the sut was
a technca one, meant merey to keep the record of the sut
straght and such appcaton was not governed by the aw of
mtaton, snce there was no abatement.
AIR 1971 A. 407

A bonafde appcaton to brng the L.Rs. (though wrong persons)
of a deceased defendant on record s an appcaton made to the
court wthn the meanng of Or.22, R.4, as not to cause the sut
to abate.
20 ML|. 398

a few L.Rs. AIR 1973 Pat 399

Or.22 appes to pendng appeas AIR 1980 SC 64

The vaue of the sub|ect matter contempated u/s 15 of the Cty
Cv Court Act cannot possby take n the vaue of the counter
cam. Pantff`s vaue determnes |ursdcton
1975-I ML| 6 = 88 L.W. 547

Sut can be decreed based on the evdence adduced by the
defendant
AIR 1965 A. 223
AIR 1951 SC 177

|udca Offcers shoud not be made partes n the wrt
proceedngs questonng the |udgments/orders 1999-3 L.W. 277
Supreme Court
Counse reportng no nstructons - Duty of court and duty of
counse - Notce shoud be gven to the party concerned
2000 TLN| 65

Statutory sut - other sut 1999 T.L.N.|. 110

Or.2, R.3 CPC.
There s no provson n the Code enabng the pantffs who
have separate causes of acton aganst the same defendant to
|on themseves and ther causes of acton n one sut
ILR 18 A. 432
ILR 15 A. 380
ILR 4 A. 261

The pantffs can ony |on n sung severa defendants n one
sut for severa causes of acton when both the pantffs and
the defendants are |onty nterested n each or a of such
causes of acton.
ILR 18 A. 131

Partner des - frm - sut aganst frm - not abated AIR 1973
Patna 441

Even a mted company, abty of Drector may be unmted
vde Sec.322, 323 of Companes Act.

The omsson to cance any stamp may resut n the document
beng taken to be unstamped to that extent.
The drawng of two nes crossng each other across the face of
the stamp s an effectua canceaton AIR 1961 Ra|. 43
ILR 1960 Ra| 808

An terate person can drect the scrbe of the promssory
note or any one ese to sgn across the adhesve stamp on hs
own behaf. Such sgnature w be qute as good as hs own
sgnature for the purpose of canceaton. Where a pronote
requrng four annas stamps bears ony three canceed one anna
stamps and one uncanceed stamp, t shoud be consdered.
AIR 1934 Lah. 606
AIR 1981 Ker. 86

In a sut by the ndorsee, the rght of acton s drecty
dependent on the ndorsement, and that form part of the cause
of acton so as to gve the court of the pace of ndorsement to
entertan a sut, not ony aganst the ndorser but aso aganst
the drawer.
22 Ca. 451
31 ML| 816
5 L.W. 246
AIR 1933 Lah. 940

AIR 1953 Mad. 767
1953-I M.L.|. 825
Sec.5 of Lmtaton Act not appes to appn. for eave to defend
Or.37 CPC.
Companes Act
Sec.51 servce of company
54 document executon by company
47,48 executon of deeds
446 suts stayed aganst wound up company
632 payment of sut costs by company
125 Regstraton of charge
332 unmted abty of Drector

Generea specabus non derogant: It s we known
proposton of aw that where a matter fas under any specfed
provsn, then t must be governed by that provson AIR 1985
46

Summonng of Document from another court R.358 CRP
R.75 CRP

Probate of W
AIR 1954 Patna 175

Petton under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. after exhaustng the remedy by
way of Revson, s not mantanabe.
1990 SCC Cr. 537

Successor |udge can perform duty of hs predeessor Sec.35
CPC. / Cr.P.C.

Cv matters - ower court to be the forum Sec.15 CPC.

Vested remander n mmovabe property s present nterest
n property and can be sod AIR 1947 Bom 185
AIR 1917 Pat. 163

Mortgage aso not forbdden ILR (1940) 2 Ca. 436 (PC)
AIR 1940 RC 134
45 CWW 253
Wrong quotng of provson w not nvadate order AIR 1985 SC
470

Frm s not a ega entty, nor s t a person. Order of
ad|udcaton aganst a frm s an order aganst the ndvdua
partners AIR 1927 Lah. 234
AIR 1926 Snd 31
AIR 1932 Snd 62

Omsson to mpead Insovency Court s fata for the
enforcement of mortgage securty AIR 1962 A 256
Sec.28 of Prov. Ins. Act.
Sec.17 Pre. Ins. Act.
Pantff a secured credtor - n summary sut, amount deposted
as a condton for grant of eave - pantff can odge cam wth
A. ony for baance AIR 1993 Bom.112

Mere attachment does not make credtor secured (1935) 41 Bom
L.R. 506
AIR 1933 Nag. 229, AIR 1929n Ca. 524 , ILR 26 Mad. 673 , ILR 39
Mad. 903
"Exparte" merey means n the absence of the other party. The
passng of the order "that the sut be heard exparte" does not
debar the defendant to appear on subsequent hearngs and
conduct hs case from the date of hs appearance
(Venkatasubbah vs. Lakshmnarayasmhan AIR 1925 Mad. 127
approved n Sangram vs. Eec Trbuna AIR 1955 SC 425
Where good cause s not shown by the defendant for hs earer
absence and the appcaton under Order 9, Rue 7 C.P.C. s
re|ected, t s st open to the defendant to |on and partcpate n
the proceedngs at a ater stage acceptng the events whch
have taken pace n the nterregunam, as they stand (Lotus
Internatona vs. Chandrabhu|adas Karnan Textes (P) Ltd. 65
(1997) DLT 300, 306 DB.
Thruppathy - |udge case - 2004-3-L.W. 230 S. Thrupathy vs.
State of Tamnadu and the Regstrar Genera, Hgh Court
2004 (3) CTC 754 Techmo Car SPA vs. the Madras Aumnum
Company Ltd. Madras Hgh Court DB per P. Sathasvam |.
The words `court` has been defned n Secton 2() of the
Arbtraton and Concaton Act, 1996 as foows:
"2()(e) "Court" means the prncpa Cv Court of orgna
|ursdcton n a dstrct, and ncudes the Hgh Court, n exercse
of ts ordnary orgna cv |ursdcton, havng |ursdcton to
decde the questons formng the sub|ect matter of the
arbtraton f the same had been the sub|ect matter of a sut, but
does not ncude any Cv Court of a grade nferor to such
prncpa Cv Court, or any Court of Sma Causes;"
Secton 12 of the Tamnadu Cv Courts Act, 1873 as t stood
pror to the Amendment Act 1/2004 shows that the |ursdcton
of a Dstrct |udge or a Subordnate |udge extends, sub|ect to
the rues contaned n the Code of Cv Procedure, to a orgna
suts and proceedngs of a cv nature. Accordngy, as rghty
camed, nasmuch as the petton under Sec.9 havng been fed
on 12.3.1993, .e. pror to Act 1/2004, the proper Court s ether
the Dstrct Court or the Sub ordnate |udge`s Court concerned.
However, as per Secton 15 of the Code of Cv Procedure, sut
sha be nsttuted n the Court of the owest grade competent to
try t. Accordngy, at the reevent tme, Subordnate |udge`s
Court s the competent court to try the petton fed under Sec.9
of the Act. As per Secton 10 of the Act, the Arbtra Trbuna
sha not be bound by the Cv Procedure Code, 1908 or the
Indan Evdence Act, 1872. The sad provson cannot come nto
operaton when a petton under Sec.9 s fed before the
competent Cv Court. ..hod that the Addtona Dstrct |udge,
Saem who passed the mpugned order, was not havng
|ursdcton on the date when the petton was fed.
`Court of Record` s not defned n the Consttuton. Ths
expresson s we recognsed n the |udca word. In |owtt`s
Dctonary of Engsh Law, `Court of Record` s defned as
"A court whereof the acts and the |udca proceedngs are
enroed for a perpetua memora and testmony, and whch has
power to fne and mprson for contempt of ts authorty."
In Wharton`s Law Lexcon, court of record s defned as
"Courts are ether of record where ther acts and |udca
proceedngs are enroed for a perpetua memora and testmony
and they have power to fne and mprson, or not of record
beng courts of nferor dgnty, and n a ess proper sense the
Kng`s Courts---and these are not entrusted by aw wth any
power to fne or mprson the sub|ect of the ream, uness by the
express provson of some Act of Parament. These proceedngs
are not enroed or recorded."
In Words and phrases (Permanent edn, Vo 10. p. 429) `court of
record` s defned as under:
"Court of Record s a court where acts and |udca proceedngs
are enroed n parchment for a perpetua memora and
testmony, whch ros are caed the `record` of the court, and
are of such hgh and supermnent authorty that ther truth s
not to be questoned."
Hasbury`s Law of Engand, 4th Edn. Vo 10 , para 709, p 319
states:
"Another manner of dvson s nto courts of record and courts
of not of record. Certan courts are expressy decared by statute
to be courts of record. In the case of courts not expressy
decared to be courts of record, the answer to the queston
whether a court s a court of record seems to depend n
genera upon whether t has power to fne or mprson, by
statute or otherwse, for contempt of tsef or other substantve
offences. If t has such power, t seems that t s a court of
record. The proceedngs of a court of record preserved n ts
archves are caed records, and concusve evdence of that
whch s recorded theren. |Deh |udca Servce Assn. vs. State
of Gu|arat (1991)4SCC406 at 437-438, AIR 1991 SC 2176, 1991
Cr.L.T.3086 (1991)3|T (SC)617, 1991 AIR SCW 2419|
(2002)I M.L.|. 760 Rengasam Reddar (ded) and others vs. M.K.
Mummach Reddar (ded) and others - Mrs. Prabha Srdevan -
Partton shoud be stamped and regstered otherwse not
admssbe n evdence.
But a Memorandum evdencng a famy arrangement aready
entered nto and prepare as a record, need not be stamped or
regstered. (2000) 2 T.L.N.|. 315 A.C. Lakshmpathy vs. A.M.
Chakrapan Reddar. - See aso AIR 1966 S.C. 292 Tek Bahadur
Bhu| vs. Deb Sngh Bhu| and others - Famy arrangement -
essentas - Arrangement when brought by document,
regstraton necessary - Memorandum of arrangement -
Regstraton not necessary.
2004-4 L.W.429 Trupat Baa| Deveopers Pvt. Ltd. & others vs.
State of Bhar & others - Supreme Court |udgment -
Reatonshp between Supreme Court and Hgh Court - Remarks
caed for by Supreme Court from Patna Hgh Court - Averson
shown by Patna Hgh Court - Such response expunged
Sec.34 of C.P.C. w not appy to a sut on mortgage. Interest
has to be fxed ony under Order 34, Rue 11 CPC. at such rate as
the court may thnk ft. - 1998-2 L.W. 26 N.M.Veerappa vs.
Canara Bank (Supreme Court DB)
2000 SCC (Cr) 1962 In the matter of `RV` a |udca Offcer -
Hgh Courts sha have restrant, care and crcumspecton whe
exercsng ts power of superntendence est those who dspense
|udge to others shoud themseves suffer n|ustce. The hgher
ters are provded n the |udca herarchy to set rght the errors
whch coud possby have crept n, n the fndngs, orders, or
proceedngs of the courts at the ower ters. It s we to
remember the words of a |urst that ` |udge who has not
commtted any error s yet to be born`.
A.I.R. 1952 SC 317 - State of Bombay vs. Purushottam |og Nack
-
Paragraph 16 -
(16) We wsh however to observe that the verfcaton of the
affdavts produced here s defectve. The body of the affdavt
dscoses that certan matters were known to the Secretary who
made the affdavt personay. The verfcaton however states
that everythng was true to the best of hs nformaton and beef.
We pont ths out as spshod verfcatons of ths type mght we
n a gven case ead to a re|ecton of the affdavt. Verfcaton
shoud nvaraby be modeed on the nes of Order 19, Rue 3 of
the Cv Procedure Code, whether the Code appes n terms or
not. And when the mater deposed to s not based on persona
knowedge the sources of nformaton shoud be ceary
dscosed. We draw attenton the the remarks of |enkns C.|. and
Woodroofe |. n `Padmabat Das vs. Rask La Dhar` 37 Ca 259
and endorse the earned |udges` observatons.
(17) In farness to the Home Secretary, we deem t rght to say
that hs veracty was nether doubted nor mpugned by the Hgh
Court, but ony hs means of knowedge. He was speakng of
the "satsfacton" of the Mnster and the Hgh Court was not
satsfed regardng hs knowedge of the state of Mnster`s
mnd. The earned |udges consdered that the Mnster hmsef
woud have been a more satsfactory source of nformaton, but
as we say, ths s not a queston of aw. As a matter of abstract
aw, of course, the state of man`s mnd can be proved by
evdence other than that of the man hmsef, and f the Home
Secretary has the requste means of knowedge, for exampe, f
the Mnster had tod hm that he was satsfed or he had
ndcated satsfacton by hs conduct and acts, and the Home
Secretary`s affdavt was regarded as suffcent n the partcuar
case, then that woud consttute egay suffcent proof. But
whether that woud be enough n any gven case or whether the
"best evdence rue" shoud be apped n strctness n that
partcuar case, must necessary depend upon ts facts.

AIR 1970 SC 652 A.K.K. Nambar vs. Unon of Inda and another
The appeant made aegatons aganst the Chef Mnster of
Andhra Pradesh and other persons of whose names were
dscosed and some of whose names were not dscosed. Nether
the Chef Mnster nor any other persons was made a party. The
appeant fed an affdavt n support of the petton. Nether the
petton nor the affdavt was verfed. The affdavts whch were
fed n answer to the appeant`s petton were aso not verfed.
The reasons for verfcaton of affdavts are to enabe the Court
to fnd out whch facts can be sad to be proved on the affdavt
evdence of rva partes. Aegatons may be true to knowedge
or aegatons may be true to nformaton receved from persons
or aegatons may be based on records. The mportance of
verfcaton s to test the genuneness and authentcty of
aegatons and aso to make the deponent responsbe for the
aegatons. In essence, verfcaton s requred to enabe the
Court to fnd out as to whether t w be safe to act on such
affdavt evdence. In the present case, the affdavts of a the
partes suffer from the mschef of ack of proper verfcaton
wth the resut that the affdavts shoud not be admssbe n
evdence.
AIR 1978 Goa 12 Caetano Das vs. Caetano Rodrgues -
Affdavts must be duy verfed. Ordnary any concuson of
the Court shoud be arrved at upon evdence, sub|ect to cross
examnaton, f any. An excepton s made by Or.19 of the C.P.C.
by aowng proof of certan facts to be made by affdavts. It
therefore stands to reason that those affdavts shoud strcty
abde wth the prescrbed form. Order 19, Rue3(1) states that
affdavts sha be confned to such facts as the deponent s abe,
of hs own knowedge to prove. An excepton s made n case of
nterocutory appcatons. In such appcatons, statements of
hs beef may be admtted ...... To my mnd n vew of the
specfc provsons of R.3(1) a verfcaton s necessary. Rue 3(1)
makes t ncumbent upon the partes swearng affdavts to
state that the deponent s abe , of hs own knowedge, to prove
the facts stated n the affdavt. The man reason why a
verfcaton of an affdavt must be strcty made s that the
deponent must be made responsbe for the statements made
by hm. .....Such proof s however aowed wth a vew to
expedtng proceedngs. It woud we-ngh mpossbe to
dspose of nterocutory appcatons wthn a short tme f proof
by affdavts was not aowed. For a these reasons, verfcaton
of affdavts s of paramount mportance. Absence of such
verfcaton s fata to the affdavt and the evdence contaned
theren shoud not be admtted, nor reed upon.
"....The Hgh Court observed that the words that the contents
of the affdavt are true and correct to the best of my knowedge
and beef carry no sanctty and such a verfcaton cannot be
acted upon.
AIR 1955 Pun|ab 164 State vs. Dttu Ram Prtam Dass - Whe
deang wth appcatons under Sec.5 of the Lmtaton Act,
Courts are aways nfuenced by the consderaton whether
extenson of the perod of mtaton s key to affect the rghts
whch have come to vest n the opposte party by effux of tme.
If therefore a convct `s appea s out of tme t s the practce of
the Pun|ab Hgh Court to condone the deay as no rght can be
sad to vest n the State to have the convcton of an nnocent
person uphed. - But t s not so n the case of State fng
petton under Sec.5 of the Lmtaton Act to condone deay n
fng appea aganst acqutta of a person.
Lord Dennng n hs benchmarkng stye had mantaned:
"When a |udge sts to try a case ..he hmsef s on tra - before
hs feow country men. It s on hs behavour that they w form
ther opnon of our system of |ustce. He must be dgnfed so
as to earn the respect of a who appear before hm. He must be
aert - to foow a that goes on. He must be understandng - to
show that he s aware of the temptatons that beset everyone.
He must be mercfu - so as to show that he too has that quaty
whch droppeth as the gente ran from heaven upon the pace
beneath."
2005-1- Law Weeky |ourna Secton - Speech of Chef |ustce
Mr. |ustce R.C. Lahot whe naguratng the addtona budng of
Gauat Hgh Court on 7.8.2004
Verfed Petton
Or.VI, Rue 14A(2) CPC.
Rue 56 (6) CRP
Pettons wth supportng affdavts
Rue 48(2) CRP Transfer Petton
Rue 82 CRP Commssoner
Order 38, Rue 1 CPC.
Order 39, Rue 1 CPC
Order 32, Rue 3 Affdavt verfyng facts
Order 41, Rue 3A condone deay
Sec.408 r/w 407(3) Cr.P.C. Transfer Petton
Rue 196 Cr.R.P. condone deay
Onerous condton whe grantng ba (1980) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 81 Hussanara Khatoon and others vs. Home Secretary,
State of Bhar - Imposng of onerous condton whe grantng
ba - Ba system oppressve and dscrmnatory aganst the
poor.
Affdavt - AIR 1988 SC 1381 Smt. Sudha Dev vs. M.P.
Narayanan and others - Sec.3 of Evdence Act - Affdavt s not
ncuded as evdence n the Evdence Act. Uness court permts, t
cannot be treated as evdence.
Affdavt - AIR 1956 Cacutta 496 Bskha Ran Chose vs. Satsh
Chandra Reddy - Verfcaton of affdavt that "to the best of my
knowedge" means nothng. Ths knd of verfcaton cannot be
accepted.
Sec.47 CPC. appea - AIR 1994 AP 334 B. Nookara|u vs. M.S.N.
Chartes and others - Under the unamended Code, a questons
decded by the Executng Court and covered by Secton 47 were
treated as decrees as defned under Sec.2(2) of the unamended
Code and therefore they were not appeaabe orders. Now, n
vew of excuson of `orders` passed under Sec.47 of the
unamended Code from the defnton of `decree` as per the
amended Code, orders passed under Secton 47 of unamended
Code are not more `decrees` and they are ony `appeaabe
orders` not attracted by Secton 96 of the Code. Ony CMA w
e, even aganst deemed decrees.
|ont Famy property - 2001-L.W. 1 700 Mohanra| vs Vaach
Amma and 8 others - Madras Hgh Court S. |agadeesan |. -
When property s acqured by father and t devoves on hs ega
hers after hs death, so far as mae hers are concerned t w
assume the character of |ont famy property. - In the case of
dsposton by father the property w assume the character n
the hands of the son, dependng on the recta. Secton 8 of the
Hndu Successon Act has no appcaton, where father des
eavng sons as we as femae hers, entted to nhert |onty
wth the sons. - No natura guardan under Sec.6 of the Hndu
Mnorty Guardanshp Act.
AIR 2002 Madras 296 Mr. |ustce V. Kanagara| - Govndamma
vs. Bhuvaneswar Fnancng Corporaton - Estate of deceased
whether actuay have vested on the hers - Must be peaded
and Issued shoud be framed whe sung hers of a deceased
Affdavt - AIR 1988 SC 1381 Smt. Sudha Dev vs. M.P.
Narayanan and others - Sec.3 of Evdence Act - Affdavt s not
ncuded as evdence n the Evdence Act. Uness court permts, t
cannot be treated as evdence.
Affdavt - AIR 1956 Cacutta 496 Bskha Ran Chose vs. Satsh
Chandra Reddy - Verfcaton of affdavt that "to the best of my
knowedge" means nothng. Ths knd of verfcaton cannot be
accepted.
Sec.47 CPC. appea - AIR 1994 AP 334 B. Nookara|u vs. M.S.N.
Chartes and others - Under the unamended Code, a questons
decded by the Executng Court and covered by Secton 47 were
treated as decrees as defned under Sec.2(2) of the unamended
Code and therefore they were not appeaabe orders. Now, n
vew of excuson of `orders` passed under Sec.47 of the
unamended Code from the defnton of `decree` as per the
amended Code, orders passed under Secton 47 of unamended
Code are not more `decrees` and they are ony `appeaabe
orders` not attracted by Secton 96 of the Code. Ony CMA w
e, even aganst deemed decrees.
|ont Famy property - 2001-L.W. 1 700 Mohanra| vs Vaach
Amma and 8 others - Madras Hgh Court S. |agadeesan |. -
When property s acqured by father and t devoves on hs ega
hers after hs death, so far as mae hers are concerned t w
assume the character of |ont famy property. - In the case of
dsposton by father the property w assume the character n
the hands of the son, dependng on the recta. Secton 8 of the
Hndu Successon Act has no appcaton, where father des
eavng sons as we as femae hers, entted to nhert |onty
wth the sons. - No natura guardan under Sec.6 of the Hndu
Mnorty Guardanshp Act.
Page 296 Mua Code of Cv Procedure (abrdged) 14th Edton
Secton 2(2), before 1976, provded that the determnaton of
any queston under S.47 s a decree uness t s appeaabe as an
order. .. Such a determnaton when t s between the partes
to the sut or ther representatves fas under Sec.47 but s
nevertheess sub|ect to one appea ony as an order under
S.104. ...A other decsons n executon under S.47 were
decrees and sub|ect to frst and second appea. ..Orders passed
under speca statutes had been hed to be appeaabe under
ths secton f they reated to executon, dscharge or satsfacton
thereof. (AIR 1953 Mad. 56 Deskacharar vs. Ramachandra) .
The poston has been atered by amendment of 1976 whch has
amended S.2(2) by deetng the porton whch ncuded
determnaton under S.47. Under the present poston, such
determnaton w no onger be appeaabe.
As regards appea, therefore, orders n executon proceedngs
may be dvded nto three casses:
(1) Order under ths secton whch are determnatons of
questons. after 1976, they are not appeaabe.
(2) Orders, whch whether they fa under ths secton or not,
are decared to be orders under O.43, R.1 and are sub|ect to one
appea ony.
(3) Non-appeaabe orders, generay of an nterocutory
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words `Secton 47 or` have been omtted by the Amendng
Act 104 of 1976. The |ont commttee of the Parament was of
the vew that the ncuson of Secton 47 n the defnton of the
expresson `decree` s many responsbe for the deay n the
executon of the decree.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments by Sarkar`s The Law of Cv Procedure Tenth Edton
2002 - page 502,503
S.99-A was nserted n the orgna b on the recommendaton of
Law Commsson (vde 54th Report P.74) adoptng the prncpes
of S.99 specfcay wth regard to appeas aganst fna orders
under S.47. |ont Commttee recommended amendment of the
defnton of "decree" n S.2 (2) by excudng therefrom
"determnaton of any queston under Sec.47" to make the fna
under order under S.47 non-appeaabe n order to reduce the
deay n the executon of decree, but dd not recommend any
consequenta reef any consequenta amendment to deete ths
secton: and the b as such was passed by the Legsature. The
resut has been that, as there w no appea aganst fna order
under S.47, ths secton remans n the statute as those servng
no usefu functon.
Comments by Sarkar`s The Law of Cv Procedure Tenth Edton
2002 - page 319.
An order determnng any queston under Sec.47 not beng a
decree wthn S.2(2), no appea es aganst t. Revson w be
entertanabe under S.115 CPC., provded the condtons ad
down by that secton are satsfed. Orders, n executon
proceedngs (not fang wthn S.47) whch have been decared
to be appeaabe under Sec.104 are appeaabe as order (eg.
Or.21, rr 34, 72, 92 and 106(1). Besdes, some orders have
been specfcay made appeaabe as decrees under provsons
reatng thereto (eg. Or.21, rr 43A, 46B, 46C, 46E, 51, 58, 98 and
100). In vew of excuson of `orders` passed under Sec.47 of
unamended code, from the defnton of `decree`` as per
amended code, and they are ony appeaabe orders not
attracted by sec.96 of the Code. (B. Nookara|u v. MSN Chartes
AIR 1994 AP 334, 336). Revson s mantanabe aganst order of
executng court re|ectng an appcaton under S.47 (Dhusan v.
Dhad AIR 1983 Orssa 127).
By removng Secton 47 CPC from the ambt of Secton 2(2)
by amendment any order order Secton 47 does not
automatcay become apppeaabe. The Court w have to
decde the matter of mantanabty by assessng f the order
fnay dsposes of the controversy and affects the rghts of the
partes fnay |Natona |ute Manufacturers Corporaton Ltd. vs.
Ramnagar Cane & Sugar Co. Ltd. 1999 CWN 540|. In certan
crcumstances an order under Secton 47 s appeaabe ony at
the choce of the |udgment debtor. |Natona |ute Manufacturers
Corporaton Ltd. vs. Ramnagar Cane & Sugar Co. Ltd. 1999 CWN
540|.
Affdavt
Sec.5 of the Lmtaton Act does not requre any affdavt
specfcay.
In ths connecton, t has to be ponted out that Rue 34 of Cv
Rues of Practce provdes for swearng of the affdavt before
an `Advocate` aso, |other than the advocate appearng for the
deponent|. Ths `cause` appears to have been subsequenty
ncuded. But, such a cause ncudng `Advocate` has not been
ncuded n the st of persons before whom affdavt s to be
sworn, and ths s cear from Rue 34 of the Crmna Rues of
Practce.
Sec.120 of the Evdence Act speaks about competency of
wtnesses. It says that a husband can swear for wfe and, a wfe
can swear for husband.
2005 SCC (Cr) 435 - Sunta Dev vs. State of Bhar and another -
|refers to State of Ratan La Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590 = 2004 SCC
(Cr) 1353 - where n a case the decson has been rendered
wthout reference to statutory bars, the same cannot have any
precedent vaue and sha have to be treated as havng been
rendered per ncuram. .. "Incura" teray means
"careessness". In practce per ncuram s taken to mean per
gnoratum.
AIR 1985 A. 12 Bshambar Daya vs. Vshwanath - Promse to
pay tme barred debt - Executon of promssory note n eu of
such debt - menton of factum of debt beng tme-barred not
requred .
AIR 1975 Mad 164 Kapaeeswarar Tempe vs. Trunavukkarasu -
Con tract t pay tme-barred debt - Tenant gvng an undertakng
to andord to pay off arrears of rent (part of arrears tme-barred
debt) - Landord s entted to recover entre arrears - Secton
25(3) of the Contract Act s far wder n scope than the
acknowedgment contempated n Sec.18. The contract under
Secton 25(3) s an ndependent and enforceabe contract.
2005(2) CTC 582 (Supreme Court - Per R.C. Lahot, C.|.I. - D.B)
Vthabha Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unon of Inda - No Cause of acton at
the tme of nsttuton of sut - Sec.111 of T.P. Act. Para 23 "In
the case at hand, the act of the pantff fng the sut before
25.6.1984 cannot be sad to be macous or ntended to
overreach the Court. The defendant`s repy dated 8.11.1983
prompted the pantff n fng the sut nasmuch as the pantff
reasonaby thought that a coud was aready cast on hs
enttement to recover the property and he shoud prompty
approach the Court. True, the defendant coud have changed hs
mnd and thought of deverng the possesson of the property
to the pantff n or after 25.6.1984 the date whereafter ony the
sut coud ordnary have been fed and n that case there woud
have been no occason at a for fng the sut. The defendant
fed ts wrtten statement much after that date. The ob|ecton
as to mantanabty of the sut was taken n the wrtten
statement. If ony t woud have been pressed for decson and
the Court woud have formed that opnon at the premnary
stage, then the pantff coud have wthdrawn the sut or the
Court coud have dsmssed the sut as premature. In ether
case, the pantff woud have fed a fresh sut based on the
same cause of acton soon after 25.6.1984. By the tme the sut
came to be decded on 12.2.1992, the dsmssa of the sut on
the ground of ts beng premature woud have been a travesty of
|ustce when the pantff was found entted to a decree
otherwse. The earned Snge |udge rghty overrued the
defendant`s ob|ecton and drected the sut to be decreed. The
Dvson Bench ought not to have nterfered wth the |udgment
and decree passed by the earned Snge |udge."
2005-1 L.W. Cr. 83 State of Orssa vs. Nankanta Mudu -
Counse shoud not cte over-rued |udgments and shoud not
ms-ead the courts
Deay n fng wrtten statement after 90 days - Tme prescrbed
s drectory and not mandatory - May be enhanced - 2005(3)
CTC 355 Kaash vs. Nanhu & other ( Supreme Court)
Prnted cause that Bombay Court aone sha have
|ursdcton s a vod stpuaton and such a queston w arse,
ony where there s a choce of forum of nsttutng the sut.
1998-3-L W 71 1989-1 L.W. part 20 page 543
|ursdcton - AIR 2005 Karnataka 94 Gobe Cogeneraton Power
Ltd. vs. Sr Hranyakesh Sahakar Sakkere Karkhane Nyamt,
Sankeshwar, Karnataka - Partes by consent cannot confer
|ursdcton on court f such court has no |ursdcton.
|ursdcton - AIR 2003 SC 1127 Mod Entertanment Network and
another vs. W.S.G. Crcket Pte. Ltd. - Para 10 " In regard to
|ursdcton of Court under the Code of Cv Procedure (CPC)
over a sub|ect-matter, on or more Courts may have |ursdcton
to dea wth t havng regard to the ocaton of mmovabe
property, pace of resdence or work of a defendant or pace
where cause of acton has arsen. When ony one Court has
|ursdcton t s sad to have excusve |ursdcton; where more
Courts than one have |ursdcton over a sub|ect-matter, they are
caed Courts of avaabe or natura |ursdcton. The growng
goba commerca actvtes gave rse to the practce of the
partes to a contract agreeng before hand to approach for
resouton of ther dsputes thereunder, to ether any of the
avaabe courts of natura |ursdcton and thereby create an
excusve or non-excusve |ursdcton n one of the avaabe
forum or to have the dsputes resoved by a foregn court of ther
choce as a neutra forum accordng to the aw appcabe to that
Court. It s we setted prncpe that by agreement the partes
cannot confer |ursdcton, where none exsts, on a Court to whch
CPC appes, but ths prncpe does not appy when the partes
agree to submt to the excusve or non-excusve |ursdcton of a
foregn Court; ndeed, n such cases the Engsh Courts do permt
nvokng ther |ursdcton. Thus t s cear that the partes to a
contract may agree to have ther dsputes resoved by a foregn
Court termed as a `neutra Court` or `Court of choce`, creatng
excusve or non-excusve |ursdcton n t."
Srnvasan |. V.P. Nagara|an vs. Prabhavath 19 and R.2 CPC.
Advocates Act Sec.49(c) and R.13 Advocates fng affdavts
wthout reasng mpcatons and consequences and takng up
the responsbty of a wtness and abty to be
cross-examned, unheathy practce - Van gory to thnk that
as the members of the ega professon occupy a hgh status,
hs affdavt w be accepted on ts own weght wthout any
corroboraton.
CPC. 19, R.2
Rue 13 n Chapter V n Part III of the Rues framed by the Bar
Counc of Inda, under Sec.49(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961:

"An advocate shoud not accept a bref or appear n a case n
whch he has reason to beeve that he w be a wtness, and f
beng engaged n a case, t becomes apparent that he s a
wtness on a matera queston of fact, he shoud not contnue to
appear as an advocate f he retres wthout |eoparadsng hs
cent`s nterests."

Advocate can fe affdavt. "No doubt, t s true that each and
every affdavt has got to be fed by the concerned party or by
ther authorzed person, agent or attorney or person who knows
the facts of the case aso. Here, the advocate on record fed
the affdavt wheren he has specfcay stated that he was we
aware of the facts of the case and ony n the sad crcumstances,
he has fed an affdavt to set asde the exparte decree and aso
an appcaton to condone the deay. The crcumstances under
whch the defendant was set exparte, expaned by the
deponent and t was ony wthn the knowedge of the advocate
on record and he knows the facts of the case and ony n the sad
crcumstances he had fed the affdavt That apart, the
concerned advocate hods vakaat for the defendant and hence,
he s entted to represent hs party. The pettons have been
fed ony to safeguard the rght and nterest of the party and t s
not pre|udca to the nterest of the party, and hence, t cannot
be sad that the advocate on record s not entted to fe the
affdavt and pettons on behaf of hs party, when especay the
sad pettons have been fed to safeguard the nterest of the
party." by Mr. K. Gnanaprakasam |. n The Arport Drector, Ar
Port Authorty of Inda, Chenna vs. Gnanasekaran (2004) 2
M.L.|. 701
An advocate`s cerk can fe affdavt. "Why I am extractng the
contents of the affdavt s that the affdavt s sworn to by a
person who s acquanted wth the facts of the case and who s
acquanted wth the proceedngs of the Court. He narrated what
transpred before the court on that date. ..... The cerk by
hmsef has not fed the petton. It s we setted that any
person who s conversant wth the facts of the case and who s a
wtness as to what transpred before the Court s competent to
fe affdavt." --by Mr. S.S. Subraman |. n L.C. Saptharsh vs.
E.D. Baasubramanam (2000-1 L.W. 130)
"The reatonshp between advocate and cent s based ony on
confdence and trust. Lega professon s consdered to be a
nobe professon and f an advocate s aowed to gve advce to
one party and appear for the opposte party n Court, the
confdence reposed on hm w be ost and hs conduct w
amount to prosttuton of professon. Counse appearng for one
party s not expected to pease both hs party and opposte party
and f he dose so, t w amount to professona msconduct and
breach of trust." -- by Mr. |ustce S.S. Subraman |. n S.V.
Duraswamy vs. Dayaan and others (2000-1 L.W. 132)
Hand-wrtng expert opnon -A.I.R. 1996 SC 1140 - Comparson
of handwrtngs - by court - wthout the assstance of Handwrtng
Expert - not proper. - aso verfy AIR 1997 SC 3255
Hand-wrtng Expert (2002) 2 M.L.|. 365 Gopa and another vs.
Ambga and others - Practse of sendng orgna documents to
Forensc Laboratory deprecated - Handwrtng Expert can ony
take photographs of the orgna for comparson.
Hand wrtng expert opnon - (2005)3 M.L.|. 268 Chnnappan
and another vs. Chnnamma - says : In Venkataakshmah vs.
Venkatappa and another (1991)1 M.L.|. 383 ths court (Madras
Hgh Court) has hed thus: The decson n R.Ramaswamy vs.
Seethamma (1990)2 L.W. 15 ony says that t s not essenta that
the Handwrtng Expert must be examned to prove or dsprove a
wrtng and that the Court s competent to compare the dsputed
wrtng wth the admtted wrtng. But that does not that n no
case, the court coud aow a party to estabsh hs case by
havng the dsputed handwrtng examned by a Handwrtng
Expert. Ma be the court aso can do the comparson of the
dsputed sgnature wth any admtted sgnature and arrve at a
decson n that regard. But when the defendants choose to
have the beneft of the handwrtng expert aso to prove ther
case, they cannot be prevented uness ther attempt s very
much beated or wth any uteror motve.
Hand wrtng expert opnon -In Kothandapan Padayach vs.
Ranganatha Padayach (1997) 1 M.L.|. 304, Madras Hgh Court
has hed: Ths Court as we as the Supreme Court have been
ndcatng that athough there s no ega bar to the |udge usng
hs own eyes to compare the dsputed wrtng wth the admtted
wrtng, he shoud, as a matter of prudence and cauton, hestate
to base hs fndng soey on comparson made by hmsef. The
prudent course s sad to e n obtanng the opnon and
assstance of the expert aso. It s equay reterated that
prudence demands that the court shoud be extremey sow n
venturng an opnon on the bass of mere comparson snce a
comparson of handwrtng s at a tmes a mode of proof
hazardous and ncudve and especay when t s made by one
not conversant wth the sub|ect and wthout such gudance as
mght be derved from the evdence of experts.
Hand wrtng expert opnon -In Dhanakod Pandayach vs.
Muthukumaraswam (1997) 2 M.L.|. 37 the Madras Hgh Court
has hed that the roe of the court whe exercsng the powers
under Sec.73 of the Evdence Act and method of approach to be
adopted woud vary aso dependng upon the reatve facts and
crcumstances of the case. In the ght of the prncpes ad
down by the Apex Court n the atest pronouncement referred
above, one of the reasons assgned by the earned frst
appeate |udge n ths case to reverse the fndng of the earned
tra |udge whch has been recorded on undertakng a
comparson by hmsef of the dsputed sgnature wth the
admtted sgnatures cannot be sad to be whoy erroneous n aw
or an un|ustfed crtcsm of the method of test adopted by the
earned tra |udge n the case.

Hand wrtng expert opnon - In Somasundaram vs. Paan
(2001) L.W. 511 t has been hed that even though the court may
have the power to compare the sgnatures, there must be some
admtted sgnature of the defendant, on the bass of whch a
comparson w have to be made. In ths case, a comparson has
been made on the bass of sgnatures affxed by defendant n the
vakaath and wrtten statement, whch are documents that have
come nto exstence after the dspute arose and after the
promssory note n queston was fed nto court aong wth the
pant. A comparson shoud not have been made on he bass of
those sgnatures.
Amendment of peadng - Or.6, Rue 17, Provso CPC. w not
appy to peadngs fed before the commencement of the
Amendment Act and hence provso w not appy to pant or
wrtten statement fed before 1.7.2002. Amendment Acts 1999
and 2002 - Rethnam @ Anna Samuthram Amma vs. Syed
Abdu Rahm (2005)3 M.L.|. 94 P.K. Msra |. of Madras Hgh Court
(Madura Bench)
Amendment of peadng - Chnnakka vs. Marakka (2005)3 M.L.|.
577 - Reef of mandatory n|uncton sought to be ncuded -
orgna sut for permanent n|uncton - proposed amendment
seeks to amend the pant for mandatory n|uncton and the court
s caed upon to ad|udcate an entre dfferent case.
C.P.C. Amendment - Anayss by Supreme Court - (2005) 6
S.C.C. 344 Saem Advocate Bar Assocaton, T.N. vs. Unon of
Inda
Order 1, Rue 10 C.P.C. - Impeadng of party - n Specfc
Performance Sut - Ony partes to the contract or ther L.Rs. can
be partes and not a party settng up tte over the property
adverse to the vendor. - Decree can be passed, n the absence of
such thrd party settng up tte - (2005) 6 S.C.C. 733 -
"The ordnary rue of cv aw s that ..the decree n a sut
shoud accord wth the rghts of the partes as they stood at the
commencement of the s. However, the Court has power to
take note of subsequent events and moud the reef
accordngy sub|ect to the foowng condtons beng satsfed: ()
that the reef, as camed orgnay, has, by reason of
subsequent events, become napproprate or cannot be granted,
() that takng note of such subsequent event or changed
crcumstances woud shorten tgaton and enabe compete
|ustce beng done to the partes; and () that such subsequent
event s brought to the notce of the court prompty and n
accordance wth the rues of procedura aw so that the opposte
party s not taken by surprse." -- Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ranbr
B. Goya (2002) 2 SCC 256. Aso see Sastnag|ee Purushotham
& Co. vs. Vmaaba Prabhua and others (2005) 8 SCC 252, and
Kedarnath Agarwa (dead) and another vs. Dhanara| Dev (dead)
by L.Rs. and another (2004) 8 SCC 76

Any person aggreved wth an order/|udgment can fe appea
aganst the same and such person need not be a party to the
sut or proceedngs n the tra court - M.P. Kano vs. Paan
2001(3) C.T.C. 452 per Davd Chrstan |. (Madras Hgh Court) -
Marasvar vs. Srkumar Amma 1998 II C.T.C. 218 per Sampath
(Madras Hgh Court) - Ad Pherozshah vs. H.M. Seerva A.I.R.
1971 S.C. 374
A sae deed executed pror to attachment before |udgment,
though regstered subsequenty, w preva over attachment
before |udgment (Hamda Amma vs. Avadppa Pathar - 1991(1)
SCC 715)
Not ony a sae deed but even an agreement of sae w preva
over attachment before |udgment made subsequent to the
agreement of sae. (Vannarakka Kaath Sreedharan vs.
Chandramaath Baakrshnan - 1990(3) SCC 291)