TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows revision petition & appeal, remits matters for reevaluation.</h1> <h3>Kalianna Kounder and Ors. Versus Marappa Kounder</h3> The court allowed both the civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal, setting aside the lower court's orders. The matters were remitted ... - Issues:1. Rejection of security offered by a third party in a civil suit for attachment before judgment.2. Interpretation of Order 38, Rules 5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the acceptance of third-party security.3. Remittance of the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the security offered by the third party.Detailed Analysis:The civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal were filed against the orders passed in a suit and an application for attachment before judgment. The dispute arose when the court rejected the security offered by a third party, leading to the filing of the petitions. The revision petitioners argued that a third party can furnish security as per Order 38, Rules 5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the contrary, the respondent contended that the rules do not explicitly permit third-party security. The court was urged to remit the matter back to the trial court for further assessment if the security offered by the third party would be sufficient to discharge any future decree. The judge examined the relevant provisions of Order 38, Rules 5 and 6 of the CPC to determine the legality of rejecting the third-party security. The judge noted that Rule 6 of Order 38 does not specify the nature of security, indicating that third-party security may be permissible. Referring to Form No. 6 in Appendix F of the CPC, the judge concluded that the rejection of third-party security was erroneous. Citing a precedent, the judge supported the acceptance of third-party security. Consequently, the judge decided to remit the matter back to the trial court for a fresh evaluation of the sufficiency of the security offered by the third party to discharge any future decree.In conclusion, the court allowed both the civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal, setting aside the lower court's orders. The matters were remitted back to the trial court for reevaluation in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
