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

1927 Supreme(Cal) 103

BUCKLAND
Manindra Chandra Nundy – Appellant
Versus
Velji Mulji – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Buckland, J. - The Master has refused to admit this plaint on the ground, that there is no affidavit proving the fitness to verify of Mr. Edwin Greaves, the gentleman who purports to have verified it. The circumstances are these:

The plaint is in a suit by the Honourable Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy, who is stated in the cause title and in the first paragraph of the plaint to carry on business by Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., as his managing agents. It is signed by Susil Kumar Bose, as constituted attorney of the plaintiff Maharaja. As to his authority to sign the plaint no question arises. Para. 18 says that Edwin Greaves is a Chief Assistant of the Firm of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. and is able to depose to the facts of the case. The verification is in the usual form and is signed "Edwin Greaves."

2. Now this does not conform to Order 6, Rule 15, Civil P.C., which provides that

every pleading shall be verified by the party or one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

3. Chap. 7, Rule 12, Rules of this Court provides:

Where any person other than the party pleading verifies a pleading un

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top