9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (10) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I do not feel called upon to refer it to a Division Bench, especially in view of the fact that the principle of the decision in Gayanoda Bala Dasse v. Butto Kristo Bairagee (1906) 33 Cal 1040 and of the decision by Cornish, J., in Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madras v. Vedantam 1935 MWN 1263, has been accepted by a Division Bench in C. M. P. No. 2083 of 1935. In O.S. No 71 of 1928 on the file o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 to 15. The lower Court upheld this contention on behalf of the Government. Hence this revision petition by the decree-holder in O.S. No 97 of 1930. 2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as a first charge is declared by Rule 10, Order 33, Civil P.C. only on the subject matter of the pauper suit it could not have been the intention of the Code to recognize the doctrine of priorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaintiff in this suit, it does not take away the right of the Government to recover from the defendants in the suit such portion of the court-fee as the Court may in the exercise of its power under Section 10 direct to be recovered from particular defendants. Rule 13 of the same order provides that questions arising between the Government and the parties so directed to pay shall be deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment. In the context it cannot possibly refer to cases where the Government have a first charge; because, there is no possibility of such first charge being affected by anything contained in Clauses 1 and 2 of that section. Such a charge will prima facie be paid off under the proviso to Clause 1, if the property is sold free of the charge. Clause 3 can there-. fore reasonably refer only to case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
