NAINAR SUNDARAM
P. Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Madras reptd. by its Registrar, High Court, Madras – Respondent
In this writ petition the challenge is of the circular ROC No.2548/78 F1 dated 10.9.1982 issued by the first respondent. The impugned circular as I find from the copy disclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition reads as follows:
/ROC 2548/78.FI
CIRCULAR
Sub: COURTS - Civil - Compulsory-printing of judgments - Doing away with - Filing of typewritten/ cyclostyled/mechanically reproduced copies of judgments for purposes of Appeal - Acceptance of -Regarding.
Sub- rule (1) of rule 1 of Order XLI, C.P.C. is proposed to be amended so as to enable the filing of typewritten or cyclostyled or mechanically reproduced or printed copies of the judgments appealed against. The amendment seeks to do away with the compulsory printing of judgments and make the printing of judgments optional and filing of printed copies thereof also optional.
Order XLII of the First Schedule to C.P.C. is also sought to be amended on the like terms, enabling the filing of typewritten or cyclostyled or mechanically reproduced copies of judgments appealed against and making printing of judgments and filing of printed copies of judgments optional.
Consequential amendments to Rules 135 and136 in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.