Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Somnath vs Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu on 20 October, 1972

Jhabarmal Panda vs Bhagawati Prasad Kedia on 27 January, 1989

As regards the decision on the merit of the appeal it is submitted that the learned appellate Court also did not consider the fact that the plaintiff was unable to prove his case to obtain a decree as contemplated under any of the clauses enumerated under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The learned Counsel also submitted that in absence of any finding the Court loses its jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction of the defendant. In support of his contention as regards mandatory provisions of Order 32, Rule 15, C.P.C. the learned Counsel has referred to me decisions rendered in Duvvuri Ram Reddiv. Duvvudu Papi Reddi, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 260; Smt. Godawari Devi v. Smt. Radha Pyari Devi, AIR 1985 Pat 366; Syed Hassan Baffakki Thangal v. Kalliath Thazha Chirutha, AIR 1988 Ker 160; Somnath v. Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu, AIR 1973 Bom 276.
Gauhati High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Syed Hassan Baffakki Thangal And Ors. vs Kalliath Thazha Chirutha And Ors. on 17 July, 1987

3. The principle of law embodied in Order XXXII, Rule 15 has been elaborately discussed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Somnath v. Tipanna, AIR 1973 Bom 276 as well as by this court in Balakrishnan v. Kalliyani. AIR 1957 Kerala 51. It is unnecessary now to discuss at length the ambit of the provisions except to say that it is a pre-requisite of a suit sought to be filed by next friend that the court should of its own motion conduct an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure before accepting the plaint filed in the name of the idiot by next friend. It is only upon due satisfaction of the court as contemplated by these provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that the court shall accept the plaint and issue notice to the defendants. Thereupon it is open to the defendants, if they wish, to challenge the plaint allegations regarding insanity, and, in that event, the court would raise an issue specifically on the point and have it tried. In the present case the court did not, in the first place, conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, despite the specific plea of the appeallants that the alleged idiot was not an idiot, but only a dumb person, an issue was not raised by the court. An issue ought to have been raised, tried and found.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - T K Thommen - Full Document

V.M. Gampa, Gulbarga And Another vs Shivasharanappa on 30 July, 1999

"3. The principle of law embodied in Order XXXII, Rule 15 has been elaborately discussed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Somnath's case, supra, as well as by this Court in Balakrishnan's case, supra. It is unnecessary now to discuss at length the ambit of the provisions except to say that it is a prerequisite of a suit sought to be filed by next friend that the Court should of its own motion conduct an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure before accepting the plaint filed in the name of the idiot by next friend. It is only upon due satisfaction of the Court as contemplated by these provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that the Court shall accept the plaint and issue notice to the defendants. Thereupon it is open to the defendants, if they wish, to challenge the plaint allegations regarding insanity, and, in that event, the Court would raise an issue specifically on the point and have it tried. In the present case the Court did not, in the first place, conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, despite the specific plea of the appellants that the alleged idiot was not an idiot, but only a dumb person, an issue was not raised by the Court. An issue ought to have been raised, tried and found".
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Abdul Asees vs Devaki on 8 April, 2009

Mr.Balakrishna Iyer submitted that once the court is informed or it comes to the notice of the court that a party before the court is by reason of unsoundness of mind or otherwise incapable of taking care of his interest, it is the court's duty to hold necessary enquiry and appoint guardian or next friend as the case may be. Mr. Balakrishna Iyer relied also on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Somnath v. Tipanna, (AIR 1973 Bombay 276).
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Charanjit Singh vs Chattranjan Pal And Others on 20 September, 2011

17. Authority Duvvuri Papi Reddi and others' case (supra) simply lays down that in case the suit has been filed by the minor or of a person of unsound mind through next friend, the same can be returned under Rule 2 of Order 32. There is no dispute to the proposition of law. In this ruling, it has been held that order XXXII Rule XV CPC relates to giving proper representation to the plaintiff if he is minor or is of unsound mind. Similar view was taken in authority Somnath's case (supra). This authority has gone one step further that separate application by the next friend is necessary under order XXXII Rule XV CPC.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K C Puri - Full Document

On The Death Of Binoy Bhusan Choudhury ... vs Rekha Rani Deb & Ors on 6 February, 2014

In the case of Syed Hussain Baffakkii Thangal & Others (AIR 1988 Kerala 160) the Kerala High Court relied on a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Somnath v. Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu (Air 1973 Bom 276) and held that Court cannot accept a plaint without conducting inquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15, if the plaintiff is a person of unsound mind. The Kerala High Court has held that such inquiry is a pre-requisite for the suit and thus failure to hold inquiry is fatal.
Gauhati High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - N Chaudhury - Full Document

Smt. Veena Wd/O Dilip Gorey vs Ashok S/O Daulatrao Goray And Another on 1 July, 2019

8. Shri R.N.Ghuge, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the impugned order. He submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner considering the nature of order passed by the trial Court. The respondent no.1 had not been appointed as the next friend of the petitioner but had been directed to act as the person willing to be the next friend of the petitioner. Moreover such appointment was only till completion of the enquiry as to the unsoundness of the plaintiff no.1/petitioner herein. He referred to the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code and submitted that since the suit was filed with the aid of the next friend and said next friend had expired, it was all the more necessary to permit the respondent no.1 to represent the interest of the petitioner. According to him, enquiry directed to be held by the trial Court could be done expeditiously by continuing the appointment of the respondent no.1 as the person willing to be the next friend. He placed reliance on the decisions in Raj Kumar Vs. Rameshchand and others, (1999) 8 SCC 29, Somnath Vs. Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu AIR 1973 Bombay 276 and Gulshan Rohington Irani Vs. Rayomand Rohinton Irani and others, 2018(4) BCR 69 in support of his submissions.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document
1   2 Next