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

1952 Supreme(Raj) 88

SHARMA
Latoor Nath – Appellant
Versus
Gopeshwar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.S. Sahai, for applicant; R.K. Rastogi, for Opposite Party No. 2

Sharma, J. —This is an application by Latoor Nath plaintiff to revise the order of the Munsif, Hindaun, dismissing the plaintiffs suit under Order IX, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reason for dismissal was that the plaintiff did not file a copy of summons to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, sufficiently before the 20th of January, 1951 which was fixed in the case.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that under O. IX, R. 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit could be dismissed only if the summons had not been served upon the difendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court-fee or postal charges, if any, chargeable for such service. The plaintiff had deposited process-fee, and the only thing that was required of him was to file a summons to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur. This summons was filed on the 17th of January, 1951. So the plaintiff had complied with the orders of the court, and it was for the court to issue the summons to the Collector after it had been filed on the 17th of January, 1951. The suit could not be dismissed under O. IX, R. 2, merely on account of summons being filed rather late.

3. On behalf of t




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