AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 121 wordsWhat the plaintiff wants to do is to set off the decree in Original Suit No. 37 of 1893 against the decree in Original Suit No. 25 of 1899. He can
only do this, if at all, u/s 246, Civil Procedure Code. This section, however, clearly requires that both the decrees should be before the Court for
execution,--Vide Chajmal Das v. Lal Dharam Singh 24 A.j 481. The precise point now under consideration was not raised and decided in Sinnu
Pandaram v. Santhoji Row 26 M.j 428. The above requirement is not satisfied in the present case. We reverse the lower Court''s order and
restore the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated 13th October 1906, with all costs subsequent thereto.