SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Bom) 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Y.V. Chandrachud and Gatne
Appellants: Kisanlal Bachharaj Vyas
Vs.
Respondent: Mohan Chandmal and Ors.
A.F.O.D. No. 14 of 1962 Decided On: 07.07.1971
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.M. Kulkarni, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Shankar Anand, Adv.

The presentation of a plaint to the Clerk of the Court at his residence after court hours is valid, and the Presiding Judge has the discretion to accept or reject such a plaint. Ratification of the presentation of a plaint by the Presiding Judge amounts to acceptance of the plaint.

Headnote:

LIMITATION - PRESENTATION OF PLAINT - ORDER 4, RULE 1, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - CIVIL MANUAL, 1960 EDITION, VOLUME I, CHAPTER II, PARAGRAPH 7 - VALIDITY OF PRESENTATION OF PLAINT TO CLERK OF COURT AT HIS RESIDENCE AFTER COURT HOURS - DISCRETION OF PRESIDING JUDGE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT PLAINT - RATIFICATION OF PRESENTATION BY JUDGE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit on a pro-note on September 12, 1960, by presenting the plaint to the Clerk of the Court at his residence at 10.15 p.m. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, holding that the presentation of the plaint after court hours was invalid.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the presentation of the plaint to the Clerk of the Court at his residence after court hours was valid. The court interpreted Order 4, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the provisions of paragraph 7 in Chapter II of the Civil Manual, 1960 Edition, Volume I, and found that there was no prohibition against presenting a plaint outside court hours. The court also held that the Presiding Judge of the Court had the discretion to accept or reject the plaint presented beyond court hours and that the Judge's ratification of the presentation by issuing further orders in the suit amounted to acceptance of the plaint.

Issues: 1. Whether the presentation of a plaint to the Clerk of the Court at his residence after court hours is valid? 2. Whether the Presiding Judge has the discretion to accept or reject a plaint presented beyond court hours? 3. Whether the ratification of the presentation of a plaint by the Presiding Judge amounts to acceptance of the plaint?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 4, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code does not prohibit the presentation of a plaint outside court hours or at a place other than the court premises. 2. The provisions of paragraph 7 in Chapter II of the Civil Manual, 1960 Edition, Volume I, are merely instructions and do not have the force of law. 3. The Presiding Judge has the discretion to accept or reject a plaint presented beyond court hours. 4. The ratification of the presentation of a plaint by the Presiding Judge by issuing further orders in the suit amounts to acceptance of the plaint.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order dismissing the suit, and remanded the suit to the trial court for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT - Gatne, J.

1. The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below has a grievance against the order passed bv the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, on August 9, dismissing his suit as being barred by limitation.

2. The suit in question was based on a pro-note dated September 11, 1957. The pro-note in question was said to have been executed bv the first defendant for himself and as manager of the joint family consisting of himself and defendant No. 2, in plaintiffs favour for a sum of Rs. 12,500/-. The amount claimed in the suit on the strength of this pro-note from both the defendants was Rs. 14,750/-. The period of limitation available for a suit to enforce the payment of pro-note being three years, the plaint in question was required to be filed in the Court on September 11, 1960. But since that happened to be a Sunday, the plaint was actually presented on the following day when the Court re-opened after the week-end i.e., on September 12. 1960. It was not, however, presented during Court hours or on the court premises. What happened was that the plaintiff presented the same to the Clerk of the Court at his residence at 10.15 p.m. The plaint was entertained by the Judge presiding the Court and further orders were passed in the suit. But when the defendants were served, they contended that the suit was barred by limitation, because, although it was presented on September 12, 1960, it was not presented to the Clerk of the Court during Court hours on the Court premises but at his residence after Court hours at about 10.15 p.m. That presentation, it was contended, was clearly invalid and the plaint could not consequently be deemed to have been properly presented on September 12, 1960; and if it was not, it was clearly liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3. This contention of the defen-dants haying found favour with the learned trial Judge, the plaintiffs claim was dismissed as being barred by limitation on the short ground that the plaint initiating the proceedings was presented after Court hours at the residence of the clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the Court on his part had no power to receive the same. Since the plaint was being dismissed on a technical ground, the learned Judge thought it fit to leave the parties to bear their own costs. Thus defeated in the Court below, the plaintiff has come up to this Court in appeal.

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 subm













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top