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

1955 Supreme(Ori) 47

PANIGRAHI
Atul Krushna Roy – Appellant
Versus
Raukishore Mohanty – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Das, for Petitioner; P.C. Chartterji, for Opposite Parties.

ORDER :- This is a petition under S. 115 of the Civil P.C., directed against an order passed by the Munsif Puri, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw his suit for accounts with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The facts are that the plaintiff and defendant were partners of an unregistered firm. The plaint had been so drafted that the suit was bound to fail as there was no prayer for dissolution of the partnership before accounts could be taken.

After the written statement was failed, the plaintiff discovered that on account of the defect the suit was bound to fail and therefore applied for leave to withdraw to fail and therefore applied for leave to withdraw it. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff had been put to the risk of losing his entire claim on account of the faulty drafting of the plaint by his lawyer, and following the decision reported in - Gurprit Singh v. Punjab Government, AIR 1946 Lah 429 (A), permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. It is against this order of the learned Munsif that the defendant has come up in revision.

2. The first point that needs consideration is whether the failure to include a prayer for diss




















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