DIXIT
DAYABHAI POONAMBHAI – Appellant
Versus
NATWARLAL SOMBHAI TALATI – Respondent
( 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
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.