Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Maharaj Bahadur Singh vs Mahant Bhagawan Das Shebait Of Iswar ... on 20 April, 1918
7. It is argued that this is a decision that) the words "first hearing" must always refer to the time when issues are framed. Such a construction would place far too wide an interpretation on the words used which must be read with their context and in reference to the particular provisions of the Code under consideration. This decision in 1907 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Greaves J. when he gave his decision in 1919. The meaning of these words in Order 13, Rule 1 was also considered in Madras in the case in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Parvathi Achi which purported to follow the decision of this Court in Tale war Singh v. Bhagwan Das (1908) 12 CWN 312 and it was held that the "first hearing" in Order 13, Rule 1 means the date on which issues are framed. The Court referred to the decision of Greaves J. and the learned Judge pointed out that it is very difficult to say from the nature of the expression used, whether it refers to the framing of the issues or to the examination of witnesses. The words "first hearing" are also used in Order 14, B. 1 (5) which provides that at the "first hearing" the Court shall after reading the plaint and the written statement, proceed to frame the issues, and Sub-rule (6) provides that nothing in this Rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the "first hearing" makes no defence.
Section 88 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chidambaram Chettiar vs Parvathi Achi on 21 August, 1925
7. It is argued that this is a decision that) the words "first hearing" must always refer to the time when issues are framed. Such a construction would place far too wide an interpretation on the words used which must be read with their context and in reference to the particular provisions of the Code under consideration. This decision in 1907 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Greaves J. when he gave his decision in 1919. The meaning of these words in Order 13, Rule 1 was also considered in Madras in the case in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Parvathi Achi which purported to follow the decision of this Court in Tale war Singh v. Bhagwan Das (1908) 12 CWN 312 and it was held that the "first hearing" in Order 13, Rule 1 means the date on which issues are framed. The Court referred to the decision of Greaves J. and the learned Judge pointed out that it is very difficult to say from the nature of the expression used, whether it refers to the framing of the issues or to the examination of witnesses. The words "first hearing" are also used in Order 14, B. 1 (5) which provides that at the "first hearing" the Court shall after reading the plaint and the written statement, proceed to frame the issues, and Sub-rule (6) provides that nothing in this Rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the "first hearing" makes no defence.
Sheikh Abdul Rahman vs Shib Lal Sahu And Ors. on 18 July, 1921
8. The matter is dealt with very clearly and at some length by Jwala Prasad Ag. C. J. and Das J., in Abdul Rahman v. Shib Lal Sahu (1922) 9 AIR Pat 252 where the learned Ag C. J. says:
Taran Mandal And Ors. vs Raj Chandra Mandal on 19 February, 1919
4. The contention on behalf of the defendant, as I understand it, is that the Court is only empowered to act as provided at the "first hearing" and that the words "at the first hearing" do not mean at the time when an application of this nature is made. Reference has been made to Order 15 which is headed "Disposal of the suit at first hearing" and reliance has been placed on a judgment of Greaves J. in Taran Mondal v. Raj Chandra Mandal (1919) 6 AIR Cal 70. In that case the learned Judge was dealing with the words "first hearing" in Order 13, Rule 1, which relates to the documentary evidence to be produced at the first hearing. The learned Judge held that the words "first hearing of the suit" under that Order meant the data when for the first time the case is "called on for hearing and really gone into," and not the date when the case was fixed for hearing but was not gone into at all. Now the report is not very clear, and it is obvious that the learned Judge did not take time to express his judgment in carefully chosen words, but in any event he was dealing with the meaning of the words "first hearing of the suit" in Order 13, Rule 1, and in the circumstances of that case, with the greatest respect, I do not see how he could have come to any other decision. The words "first hearing" are used frequently in various Orders, notably in Order 8, Rule 1 which provides that the defendant may at or before the "first hearing" present a written statement of his defence, and in the note to Messrs. Chitaley and Annaji Rao's Code of Civil Procedure, at p. 1388, I find the following comment:
1