TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether relief under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be granted in the absence of an admission sufficient to attract Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the application was barred by finality and res judicata in view of the earlier dismissal of a similar application.
Issue (i): Whether relief under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be granted in the absence of an admission sufficient to attract Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Relief under Order XXXIX Rule 10 is available only where the subject matter is admitted to belong to, or be due to, the other party in a manner sufficient in law to justify an order on admissions. The dispute over title to the suit property was still live, the Will set up by the defendant remained under trial, and there was no clear admission that would satisfy the threshold of Order XII Rule 6.
Conclusion: The prerequisite for an order under Order XXXIX Rule 10 was not satisfied, and the requested direction could not be granted.
Issue (ii): Whether the application was barred by finality and res judicata in view of the earlier dismissal of a similar application.
Analysis: A similar application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 had already been dismissed and that dismissal was never challenged. No fresh facts or new cause of action were shown. The later consent-based appellate order did not decide the merits or revive a right to re-agitate the same relief.
Conclusion: The application was barred by finality and res judicata and was therefore misconceived.
Final Conclusion: The request for interim deposit or security failed on both merits and maintainability, and the application was rejected with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Relief under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be granted only when there is a clear admission sufficient to support relief on admissions under Order XII Rule 6, and a second application for the same relief is barred absent a fresh cause or material change in circumstances.
TaxTMI 
