Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.47 seconds)
Assembly Of God Church vs Ivan Kapper And Anr. on 12 August, 2004 cites

Mahant Ramdhan Puri vs Chaudhury Lachmi Narain on 16 December, 1936

20. Mr. Sen at this juncture, by referring to the various decisions of the Supreme Court urged before me that if I intend to disagree with the aforesaid unreported decision of the learned Single Judge, I should refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the same before a Division Bench. As the said decision of the learned Judge was delivered in ignorance of a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Ramdhan Puri vs. Lachmi Narayan (supra), which is binding upon this Court, I am of the view that such reference is unnecessary.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Harendra Nath Singha Ray vs Purna Chandra Goswami And Ors. on 31 March, 1927

15. I am, therefore, of the opinion that even if the averments made in the plaint are not in conformity with the provisions contained in Order 1 or Order 2 of the Code regarding misjoinder of parties or causes of action, such defects cannot be put forward as a bar so as to attract the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code. If, however, the Court accepts the plea of misjoinder of the plaintiffs, it will take step in accordance with the provision of the Order 1 Rule 2 of the Code by giving liberty to the plaintiffs to elect. If in spite of giving such direction, the plaintiffs do not exercise option, the Court itself can strike out the unnecessary plaintiff or plaintiffs and proceed with the suit by invoking powers under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code or direct that the suit should be treated as more than one suits, (see the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harendra Nath vs. Purna Chandra, . But the suit cannot be dismissed or the plaint cannot be rejected for not exercising the election because of the specific mandate given by the Code that no suit should be defeated for misjoinder of parties or causes of actions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Gur Prosad Singh And Ors. vs Gur Prosad Lal And Ors. on 16 January, 1914

19. The learned Judge in that case after holding that there was misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action, rightly took recourse to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 2 of the Code and directed the plaintiffs to elect but while incorporating a default clause of rejection of plaint, in my view, overlooked the provision of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code. Moreover, the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the cumulative effect of the provisions of Order 1 Rules 2, 9 & 13 and Order 2 Rules 6 & 7 of the Code showing that the defect of misjoinder of parties and cause of action are waivable and not an absolute bar of maintainability of a suit. Thus, I am unable to accept the said decision as a precedent in support of the proposition of law that misjoinder of plaintiffs or causes of action results in rejection of plaint within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code when Order 1 Rule 9, Order 2 Rule 6 and Section 99 of the Code specifically declare that no suit can be defeated on the ground of misjoinder of parties or causes of action and any erroneous decision on such question should not even be interfered with by an Appellate Court unless it affects the merit of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. Moreover, I have already pointed out that a plaint can only be rejected under the circumstances mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code and under no other circumstances unless specifically empowered in that behalf by any other statute and non-compliance of a direction for election under Order 1 Rule 2 of the Code within a specified time does not enable a Court to reject a plaint.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1