AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 123 words
1.
It is argued that a memorandum of objections by a respondent cannot be of avail against a co-respondent. This question is concluded by a
series of decisions in Kulaikoda Pillai v. Viswanatha Pillai 28 M.k 229 and C.R.P. No. 322 of 1903 and Krishna Aiyengar v. Appanayangar 17
M.L.J. 62 The new Code has made the matter abundantly clear, Rule 22 of Order 41--and we are not inclined to re-open a course of decisions in
this Presidency on a rule of procedure which has since been expressly accepted by the legislature even if there should be any ground to doubt its
correctness.
2.
On the finding, the decision of the District Judge is right; we dismiss the Second Appeal with costs--two sets.