The court has wider discretion under the present rule than under the old rule, and is not bound to dismiss the suit

Headnote:
R.227 - High Court Original Side Rules 1980 - The court has wider discretion under the present rule than under the old rule, and is not bound to dismiss the suit
Fact of the Case:

Mr. Patel contends that the suit must be placed on board for dismissal and dismissed, citing specific rules
Finding of the Court:

The court rejects the application, noting that the present rule provides wider discretion than the old rule, and that the summons for judgment was taken out before the matter could be notified for dismissal
Issues: Interpretation of R.227 of the High Court Original Side Rules 1980 and R.220(4) of the Rules of 1957
Ratio Decidendi: The court's discretion under the present rule is wider than under the old rule, and the court is not bound to dismiss the suit
Final Decision: Application rejected, unconditional leave to defend granted, suit transferred to the list of long causes, with specific timelines for written statement and usual orders for discovery and inspection

ORDER :- Mr; Patel refers to R.227 of the High Court Original Side Rules 1980 and to R.220(4) of the Rules of 1957 and contends that I must place the suit on board for dismissal and must dismiss the same. He lays that under the old rule the Court had discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss the suit depending on whether sufficient cause is shown or not, while under the present rule there is no such discretion vested in Court. In my view the position is actually to the contrary.

2. Under the old rules, the Court's discretion was limited to sufficient cause being shown and if it was not shown the suit had to be dismissed. As against this the present rule only provides that the suit shall be placed on board for dismissal but it does not provide as to what is to happen thereafter. In my view the Court will, therefore, have a wider discretion now than before and the, Court is not bound to dismiss the suit.

3. Application is rejected, particularly, in view of the fact that the summons for judgment is now taken out, even before the matter could be notified for being placed on board for dismissal.

4. In view of the fact that the summons or judgment has been taken out after such delay, unconditional leave to defend. Suit transferred to the list of long causes. Written Statement within 8 weeks. Usual orders for discovery and inspection.

Ordered accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(Bom) 58

Bombay High CourtMODYCentral Bank of India - AppellantVersusFemme Pharma Ltd. - RespondentDecided On : 02/23/1981

The court has wider discretion under the present rule than under the old rule, and is not bound to dismiss the suit

Bombay High Court
MODY
Central Bank of India - Appellant
Versus
Femme Pharma Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 02/23/1981