Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 279
S.C. Pandey, J.
Punjab National Bank
vs
Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi And Anr.
DECIDED ON : 12 March, 1996
Except for recording evidence, English may be used as the language for anything required or allowed to be done by the Code of Civil Procedure, but a translation must be provided if the opposite party or counsel lacks knowledge of English.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 137 - TRANSLATION OF PLAINT - APPLICABILITY - ENGLISH LANGUAGE - PERMISSIBLE EXCEPT FOR RECORDING EVIDENCE - TRANSLATION TO BE PROVIDED ON DEMAND.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money in English. The defendants applied for a translated copy of the plaint in Hindi under Section 137 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial court directed the plaintiff to supply the translated copy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was not barred from filing the plaint in English, but was required to supply a translated copy in Hindi if the opposite party or the counsel demanded it for lack of knowledge of English.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff was required to file the plaint in Hindi.
Ratio Decidendi: Sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Civil Procedure Code permits the use of English language for pleadings and applications, except for recording of evidence, subject to a translation being supplied to the other side when necessary.
Final Decision: The court directed the plaintiff to supply a translated copy of the plaint in Hindi.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The use of English for pleadings and applications is permitted under the Civil Procedure Code, except for the recording of evidence, which must be in the language of the court or translated if requested [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
The plaintiff has the right to file a plaint in English; however, if the opposite party or their counsel lacks knowledge of English, they can demand a translated copy in the court's language, and the plaintiff must supply it [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
The court's decision emphasizes that the primary requirement is for the plaintiff to provide a translated copy of the plaint in the requested language if such a demand is made and is genuine [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
The legal position clarifies that while the State Government may declare a language for court proceedings, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code allow pleadings and applications in English, with translations provided on demand, overriding any conflicting notifications [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
The court cannot reject a plaint filed in English solely on the ground that it was filed in that language; instead, the obligation is to supply a translation if required [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
The court also notes that demands for translation should be genuine; if a demand appears to be made merely to prolong litigation or is frivolous, the court has the authority to reject such requests [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
Overall, the legal framework supports the use of English for pleadings, with the condition that translations are provided when demanded for reasons of language comprehension, ensuring fairness and access to justice [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 23-1-1991, passed by Shri M. A. Minz, IIIrd Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 24-A/1989.
2. The applicant/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 82,016.70 p. against the non-applicants on 26-4-1989. The plaint in the case was filed in English. After service of summons, it is alleged by the applicant that on 17-7-1990, an application was made by the counsel for the non-applicants in English to supply the copy of the statement of account in Hindi which was accordingly supplied. Thereafter on 23-1-1991, the counsel for the non-applicants filed an application under Section 137 of Civil Procedure Code requiring the applicant to give a translated copy of the plaint in Hindi. This application too was signed by the counsel for the non-applicants in English. The application filed by the counsel for the non-applicants in the court below was opposed by the applicant on the ground that the application under Section 137 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed with a view to avoid filing of the written statement and, their defence was liable to be struck off under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court has rejected the application and directed the applicant to supply a translated copy of the plaint in Hindi.
3. The proviso to Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code requires that Court must also come to the conclusion that the impugned order had occasioned failing of justice. I do not find that it is necessary to issue notice and interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
4. However, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that this court must clarify the legal position because the Banks usually draft their plaint in English and filing of plaint in English is not barred.
5. It is, therefore, necessary to clarify the legal position for the guidance of the civil courts. This Court had occasion to consider the points raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in Civil Revision No. 1262/1978, decided on 7-12-1979 wherein it was pointed out that the trial Court had relied on notification No. 4590-F.N. 7 (a)-5-76-B-XXI, dated 26-11-1976, issued by the State Government that from 26th January 1977 Hindi shall be the language of all Courts subordinate to the High Court and that the application to the proceedings in such Courts shall be written in Deonagari script. Considering that notification, this Court observed that sub-section (2) of Section 137 of Civil Procedure Code permits the State Government to make a declaration as to what shall be the language of any such Court. However, sub-section (3) of Section 137 of Civil Procedure Code provides that where the Code requires or allows anything other than recording of the evidence to be done in writing, such writing may be in English. It further provides that in case the opposite party or the pleader is not acquainted with the English language, a translation into the language of the Court, at his request, may be supplied. The language of sub-section (3) shows that it has an overriding effect over the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (2) and that except recording of evidence, the pleadings and applications under the Code may be in English language subject to a translation being supplied to the other side when necessary. It was also pointed out that proviso to Article 345, Constitution of India also states that until the State Legislature otherwise provided by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. English was the language which was used immediately before the commencement of the Constitution for instituting suits by filing the plaints. The Legislature of this State has not so far expressly provided that any other language will be used for writ
