Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Bachan Singh vs Dasrath Singh on 27 August, 1935

Hubraj Singh And Ors. vs Mst. Rama Dasi Kuer And Anr. on 29 March, 1954

The learned Judges' in that case followed the line indicated by Bennet J. in -- 'Bachan Singh's case (A)' and held that though the application for restoration may be treated as a fresh plaint yet it was possible for the court to restore the plaint already rejected and extend the time for payment of court-fee under Section 149, Civil P. C. Reliance was placed on the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Anant Prasad Singh vs Chunnu Tewari And Ors. on 15 February, 1939

4. It is contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to restore the plaint and that the most that can be said in favour of the plaintiff is that he must be deemed to have instituted a new suit on 1st May 1937. It is contended further that a suit instituted on that date was barred by limitation. Learned Counsel urges strongly that a Court which has rejected a plaint under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 cannot restore it. He refers to the case in Bachan Singh v. Dasrath Sigh (1935) 22 A.I.R. All. 985. This case is not strictly speaking authority for the proposition which he has put forward. That was a case in which this Court; rejected an application in revision which had been made upon the ground that the Court below had restored a suit after it had rejected the plaint because insufficient court-fees had been paid. It is true that this Court in that case based its decision upon the fact that the suit was within limitation on the date when the deficiency in court-fees was made good, but the Court certainly did not dismiss the suit upon the ground that the plaint could not be restored. On the other side there is the authority of a Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 367 of 1936. In that case a plaint had been rejected because the court-fees had not been paid within the time allowed. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that as the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, the plaintiff's only remedy was by way of filing a fresh suit. The learned Judges pointed out that the plaintiff's suit was in time when the original plaint was presented but was barred by limitation on the date when the plaint was rejected. The Court restored the plaint upon the ground that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the deficiency in time to enable them to make that deficiency good.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1