IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(J.R. Vimadalal J.)
SHEVARAM THADARAM JAISINGHANI - Plaintiff
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. - Defendants
Advocates appeared
For plaintiff - A.N. Modi
For defendants - R.P. Bhatt
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER VI, RULE 5 (2) AND ORDER V, RULE 2 - APPLICABILITY TO ORIGINAL SIDE OF HIGH COURT - RULES FRAMED UNDER SECTION 122 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO MAKE RULES FOR ITSELF - CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 122 - SCOPE OF RULEMAKING POWER UNDER SECTION 122, SECTION 129 AND CLAUSE 37 OF THE LETTERS PATENT - DISTINCTION - SUMMONS NOT PROPERLY SERVED - NO QUESTION OF CHAMBER SUMMONS BEING BARRED BY REASON OF ITS HAVING BEEN FILED BEFORE THE RETURNABLE DATE OF THE SUMMONS.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed a Chamber Summons for further and better particulars under Order VI, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the Chamber Summons was barred by the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was not taken out before the returnable date of the Summons. The defendants contended that the Rules framed under section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the Original Side of the High Court and that there was no proper service of the summons on the defendants, as a copy of the plaint was not served along with the summons, as required by Order V, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Order VI, rule 5 (2), as well as of Order V, rule 2 as framed under the rulemaking power contained in section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable to proceedings on the Original Civil Side of this Court also. The Court further held that the Summons in the present case has not been properly served on the defendants, in so far as it was admittedly not accompanied by a copy of the plaint as required by Order V, rule 2, as framed under section 122, Civil Procedure Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rules framed under section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the Original Side of the High Court? 2. Whether the Summons in the present case has been properly served on the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the power conferred on the High Court by section 122 to frame procedural rules for itself should not be construed as limited by the context in which it occurs. The reference to subordinate Courts in the said section should not be held to indicate that power is conferred on the High Court to make rules for itself, only in relation to subordinate Courts, and not in regard to its Original Side. 2. The Court held that the Summons in the present case has not been properly served on the defendants, in so far as it was admittedly not accompanied by a copy of the plaint as required by Order V, rule 2, as framed under section 122, Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff to the present Chamber Summons and made the Chamber Summons absolute in respect of certain items.
2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Modi to the maintainability of the Chamber Summons on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as framed under the Rules made by the High Court under section 122 of that Code, in so far as it has not been taken out before the returnable date of Summons which was June 26, 1967. The answer of Mr. R. P. Bhatt on behalf of the defendants to that preliminary objection raised by the plaintiff is two-fold; first that the Rules framed under section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the Original Side of the High Court; and, secondly that, if it is held that they do apply to the Original Side of the High Court, there has been no proper service of the summons on the defendants, in view of the fact that a copy of the plaint was not served along with the summons, as required by Order V, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, as framed under the same rulemaking power contained in section 122 of that Code.
3. The point, undoubtedly, is a very narrow one, but as it raises an important question of practice which is not covered by authority, I had reserved orders on this Chamber Summons. It is not disputed that the present Chamber Summons has not been taken out by the defendants before the returnable date of the Summons which was served upon them in this case. If Order VI, rule 5 (2), as framed under section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is held applicable to the Original Side of the High Court, this Chamber Summons must, therefore, be held to be barred as being out of time. That brings me to the first contention of Mr. Bhatt. Part X of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the rulemaking power of the High Courts, and it is necessary for me to refer to sections 122 and 129 which occur in that Part. Section 122 confers on High Courts power to make rules regulating their own procedure, as well as the procedure of Courts subordinate to them. The question which arises is whether the power conferred on the High Court by the said section to frame procedural rules for itself should be construed as limited by the context in which it occurs. In other words, the question is whether the reference to subordinate Courts in the said section should be held to indicate that power is conferred on the High Court to make rules for itself, only in relation to subordinate Courts, and not in regard to its Original Side. I am not prepared to read any such limitation into the plain meaning of the expression "High Courts" which, in my opinion, must be construed to mean High Courts in regard to their entire jurisdiction. In the case of High Courts which have Original Jurisdiction, that expression must, therefore, be held to include that jurisdiction also. It would, of course, be open to the High Court to frame a rule under section 122 for regulating the procedure of any particular Court or Courts subordinate to it, or of its own Original Side or Appellate Side only, but, in that event, the High Court must in specific terms restrict the applicability of such a rule in the manner desired. The next contention is that, in view of the fact that section 129 confers an express rulemaking power on High Courts in regard to their Original Civil Jurisdiction, section 122 must be read as applying to all jurisdiction other than Original Civil Jurisdiction, as section 129 would otherwise be rendered superfluous. I am afraid, there is no substance in that contention, for the simple reason that the ambit and extent of the rulemaking power contained in those sections is different. It is expressly stated in section 122 that the Rules framed by the High Court under that section can annul, alter or add only to the Rules contained in the First Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code. The necessary implication
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.