Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Kisanlal Bachharaj Vyas vs Mohan Chandmal And Ors. on 7 July, 1971 cites

Ratan Jayakisan Shukla vs Bapu Hiraji Kunbi on 24 July, 1936

4. The submission of Mr. Kul-karni appearing on behalf of the plaintiff was that the learned trial Judge was in error in taking the view that the plaint was not validly presented on September 12, 1960, and in holding that the suit was consequently barred by time. He pointed out that there was nothing in Order 4, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show that in order that the presentation should be valid, the plaint must always be presented during Court hours and that the Clerk of the Court would have no power to receive the same at his residence after Court hours. He fairly conceded that the Civil Manual (Vol. I), 1960 Edition, issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay contains a provision in paragraph 7 in Chapter II that a plaint may be presented at any time during the Court hours to the Clerk of the Court of to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf under Order 4, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or in the absence of that officer, to the Judge himself. But his argument was that the provisions of this paragraph merely amount to instructions which do not have the force of law and such instructions could not consequently override the provisions of Order 4, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Clerk of the Court could not consequently be precluded from receiving plaint at his residence after Court hours. It was further pointed out that there is a note under paragraph 7 in Chapter II of the Civil Manual, which says that if a plaint is presented beyond Court hours, it will be in the discretion of the Judge to accept it or not. The submission therefore was that in cases where a plaint was presented beyond court hours, it was open to the Presiding Judge of the Court to accept it or not, and in the present case he must be deemed to have exercised his discretion in plaintiff's favour by ratifying its acceptance by issuing further orders in the suit. Mr. Kulkarni concluded his submission by relying on a decision of this Court in Ratan Jayakisan v. Bapu Hiraji, (38 Bom LR 1196) - (AIR 1937 Bom 25).
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hanmant Rukhmaji vs Annaji Hanmant on 20 June, 1913

5. Mr. Shankar Anand appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, urged that although Order 4. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not contain anything to show that the presentation of a plaint made at the residence of the Clerk of the Court after Court hours would be invalid, the provisions of paragraph 7 in Chapter II of the Civil Manual had the force of law. and the same being binding, presentation made in contravention of that provision was rightly recorded as invalid by the learned trial Judge. According to Mr. Shankar Anand, the High Court had the right to frame rules both under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the rule in question framed by the High Court cannot consequently be allowed to be violated as being nothing beyond instructions to courts in the mofussil. Mr. Shankar Anand, on his part, tried to support the judgment of the learned trial Judge by placing reliance on two decisions of this Court in Hanmant V. Annaji Hanmant ( (1913) ILR 37 Bom 610) and Gangabai v. Gaurishankar and one decision of the Madras High Court in C. M. Appava Pillai v. Amir Sahib (AIR 1914 Mad 376 (1) ).
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1