Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
India Electric Works Ltd vs James Mantosh & Anr on 15 September, 1970
9. It now remains to be considered, whether the reason given for withdrawing the earlier suit that it was likely to fail on a technical defect of not issuing the notice under Section 80 CPC should be considered a "cause of a like nature", like that of defect in the jurisdiction of the Court. There could be no controversy that this should be considered ejus dem generis. Under Order 23(1)(3) where the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit etc. then the Court may grant permission to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim on such terms as it thinks fit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The order passed in the second appeal in the earlier suit clearly states that the suit was likely to fail for the technical defect, namely, that the notice under Section 80 CPC was not issued. Whether such a defect noticed by the plaintiff at that stage and recognised by the Court to give permission to institute a fresh suit is "a cause of like nature" as contemplated under Section 14(3) of the Limitation Act is the only point that deserves examination- in the case of INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LTD. v. JAMES MANTOSH AND ANR. , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the expression "or other causes of a like nature" obtaining in Section 14(3) of the Act. At para-4 of the Report, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Section 7 in The Pensions Act, 1871 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1