Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.70 seconds)
Neelikandi Moidin vs Kunhayissa And Ors. on 30 October, 1935 cites

Selina Sheehan vs Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib on 25 January, 1932

Even the learned Judges, who decided Mrs. Selina Sheeham v. Hafiz Mohammad Fatesh, Nashib 1932 36 CWN 567 were not prepared to express a positive dissent from the earlier cases. It is true that Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C. provides for the rejection of a plaint when the plaintiff is not prepared to pay the proper court-fee. But that provision must be read consistently with the powers possessed by the Court under other provisions of the law. I see no useful purpose in insisting that the Court must reject the plaint in circumstances like those of the present case and insist upon the plaintiff filing a fresh petition.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Nirmul Chandra Mookerjee And Anr. vs Doyal Nath Bhuttacharjee And Ors. on 11 January, 1877

2. The situation that has arisen in the present case need not necessarily suggest any mala fides on the part of the plaintiffs. They might have been prepared to pay the court-fee which they were advised was the fee proper payable when they instituted the suit. Especially in respect of partition suits, it is common knowledge that there is considerable divergence of judicial opinion as to the court-fee payable. If later on the Court considers an additional fee necessary and if in truth and fact the plaintiffs are not possessed of means to pay the additional fee, there is nothing inconsistent with the scheme of the Code in giving the plaintiffs the benefit of the provisions of Order 33. The very fact that such a rule has been laid down in Calcutta as early as in Nirmul Chandra Mookerji v. Doyal Nath Bhuttacharjee (1876) 2 Cal 130, and in Bombay as early as Revji Patil v. Saiharam (1884) 8 Bom 615, is some indication of its propriety and it is not to be forgotten that there have been at least two or three occasions since those cases were decided when the Legislature has either recast or made amendments to the Civil Procedure Code. On a point of practice, it is a well established principle that the Legislature must be presumed to approve of established rules and practice if, on occasions when it does turn its attention to the subject, it does not introduce any provisions to the contrary.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

A.L.A.C.T. Solayappa Chetty vs R.M.M.L. Lakshmanan Chetty And Ors. on 28 August, 1919

3. It may be very convenient for the defendant in certain circumstances to insist upon that course. It is not by any means certain whether the time occupied by the pendency of the first suit can be deducted for purposes of limitation under Section 14, Lim. Act. Considerations of this kind point more to the reasonableness of the view sanctioned by the earlier line of authorities than to the contrary. Mr. Govinda Menon referred to certain observations in Solayappa Chetty v. Lakshmanan Chetty 1920 38 MLJ 146, relating to the anomaly, that may result from permitting an appeal regularly presented to be converted later on into an appeal in forma pauperis. Reference was there made to the difference in the period of limitation applicable to pauper appeals and appeals preferred in the ordinary course. I see no insuperable difficulty in the way. If the appeal has been admitted in the ordinary course, no question of limitation would really arise. If on the other hand the problem arises as a result of a return of the memorandum of appeal by the Court on a requisition for payment of a higher court-fee, the matter can be dealt with under Section 5, Lim. Act. I am unable to see where the application of Article 181 comes in. Two other questions raised by Mr. Govinda Menon are really questions of fact and I am not satisfied that the learned Subordinate Judge has misdirected himself in dealing with them. It is admitted that the deposit in the bank which is relied on as a source available to the plaintiffs for payment of court-fee has been deposited by defendant 1 in the plaintiff's name.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1