LAKSHMI DEVI Vs. MUTHRALAL
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-4-19
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 18,1952

LAKSHMI DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
MUTHRALAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANGAL SINGH V. BISHEN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM ANAND SINGH V. KHEEDOO SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BALEKKALA SUBRAYA BHATTA VS. NULIYAL GOVINDA BHAT [REFERRED TO]
KUTHALA MUDALIAR VS. VENKATA REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. HAR JAS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.)This is a revision by Mt. Lakshmi Devi in a Small Cause Court matter. A suit was brought by Muthra Lal for recovery of Rs. 200/- in the following circumstances. The applicant Mt. Lakshmi Devi had brought a suit against Dr. Onkar Lal and others. In that suit, she had to file security and Muthra Lal stood surety for the applicant for the sum of Rs. 200/-. Mt. Lakshmi Devi lost that suit and there was a decree of costs to the extent of Rs. 203/- against her. In execution of that decree Muthralal had to pay Rs. 200 to the decree-holders as he had stood surety for costs. After this amount had been paid, Muthra Lal wanted Mt. Lakshmi Devi to repay him the money. She refused to do so & consequently this suit was brought by Muthra Lal in the Small Cause Court, Udaipur. The suit has been decreed and hence this revision.
(2.)The first point that has been urged is that the amount of Rs. 200/- has been paid back. That is, however, a question of fact and the trial court came to the conclusion on a consideration of the evidence that the amount had not been paid back. I see no reason to differ from the trial court in this matter.
(3.)The second point that has been urged is that the decree of costs has been set aside and the applicant is taking action under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the suit was premature and Muthra Lal had no cause of action. I do not see how it can be said that the suit is premature and Muthra Lal has no cause of action, even if the applicant is taking action under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of certain orders of the appellate court. Muthra Lal's cause of action arose because the amount of Rs. 200/-was realized from him. He has not got back that money after the order of the appellate Court. Further, he cannot apply under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under these circumstances, Muthra Lal has a cause of action and the suit is maintainable.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.