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

1956 Supreme(Mad) 78

RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
S. M. Muhammad Ibrahim – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pudukottai, Tiruchirapalli District – Respondent


Advocates:
T. R. Srinivasan for Petitioner in both the petitions.

Order

I agree with the Office Note. Where a petitioner desires to question the validity or legality of an order, he is entitled to apply for an appropriate writ but this right of his flows from the order affecting him. The fact that similar orders are passed in the case of other individuals also be it by the same officer or authority, does not mean that the injury caused is a common or class injury so as to justify a single petition with all the individuals similarly affected joining in it as petitioners. The provision in Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, seeks to obviate the inconveniences arising out of a multiplicity of parties - but neither the rule nor its principle can be ex ended to Writ Petitions. Again the fact that the relief prayed for by the several petitioners each of whose individual right is alleged to have been invaded improperly by the impugned order is grounded on a common objection, the invalidity of the legislation or the rule or some order interpreting or enforcing the statute or the rule does not also afford any basis for a joint Writ Petition by several petitioners aggrieved by similar orders. Each of them has to file independent petitions, paying separat




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