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

1956 Supreme(MP) 42

DIXIT
DAYABHAI POONAMBHAI – Appellant
Versus
NATWARLAL SOMBHAI TALATI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
CHAPHEKAR, K.A.Chitale, Purshottambhai, S.D.SANGHI, S.L.Dubey, S.R.JOSHI

DIXIT, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions submit for decision an interesting point as to the validity of a plaint in English in a suit instituted in a Civil Court located in the territory of the former Madhya Bharat. The facts are simple. Natwarlal filed a suit on 13th April, 1956, against Dayabhai, Chhotobhai and Purshottambhai in the court of the District Judge, Indore, for accounts or a dissolved partnership. The plaint was in English. After the service of the summons, the defendants without filing any written statement raised an objection that as the language of the Court was Hindi and the plaint was in English, the plaintiff be directed to file the plaint in hindi before calling upon the defendants to file their written statements. In reply, the plaintiff, while maintaining that the plaint in English was a valid one. filed a Hindi translation of the plaint. Thereupon the defendants raised further objections that as the plaint filed in English was invalid there was no suit at all; that the Hindi translation should be considered as a freshly Instituted plaint against the defendants on the date on which the translation had been filed; and that it required fresh court-fees. The












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