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

1999 Supreme(Raj) 278

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
Rajasthan State Electricity Board – Appellant
Versus
Ram Deo – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.K. Agrawal, for Appellants

Honble SHARMA, J.–At the time of consideration of submissions advanced in respect of admission of the appeal a short and interesting question arose in respect of interpretation of the provisions contained in sub rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 CPC which provides that "where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect there of as the court may think fit".

(2). Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed that the various High Courts had occasion to interpret the aforesaid sub rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 along with Rule 5 of Order 41 CPC. and it was held that the afore- said rule is not mandatory in nature.

(3). The basic ruling in this regard is Union Bank of India and another vs. Jagan Nath Radhey Shyam and Co. and another (1). The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1974, (Bill No. 27 of 1974) as introduced in the Parliament was considered by the Delhi High Court and it was held in paras 18,19 and 20 thus:

``18. After this report of the Joint Committee, we find that the proposed Rule 1 A was



























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