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

2004 Supreme(All) 2502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANJANI KUMAR, J.
Raj Kumar and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 16279 of 2004
Decided on : 22-04-2004

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.S. Maurya
For the Respondent: Anuj Kumar, Addl. S.C. and S.C.

The provision regarding procedure is held to be directory unless specially made mandatory.

Headnote:

Para 103 - Gram Samaj Manual - The court held that the provision of Para 103 of Gram Samaj Manual is not mandatory and the provision regarding procedure is always held to be directory unless specially made mandatory.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner objected to the suit filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha, citing violation of Para 103 of the Gram Samaj Manual. The trial court rejected the plaint, but the lower appellate court held the suit as maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the provision of Para 103 of Gram Samaj Manual is not mandatory and the suit is maintainable.

Issues: Objection to suit filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha, violation of Para 103 of Gram Samaj Manual, rejection of plaint by trial court, maintainability of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The provision of Para 103 of Gram Samaj Manual is not mandatory, and the provision regarding procedure is held to be directory unless specially made mandatory.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

ANJANI KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, aggrieved by an order passed by the trial court rejecting his application 71Ga and objection 77Ga.

3. The petitioner raised an objection that the suit filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha cannot be filed through a private counsel who is not a penal lawyer and thus there is violation of Para 103 of the Gram Samaj Manual. The trial court accepted the plea and rejected the plaint under Order VII. Rule 11. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court reversed the order passed by the trial court and held that the suit is maintainable. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this Court by means of this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the provision of Para 103 of Gram Samaj Manual is mandatory. In the absence of any such provision or any law the provision regarding procedure is always held to be directory unless specially made mandatory. It having not done the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

5. The writ petition is dismissed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top