Skip to content


Raghavendra Raoji Kathawate Vs. Yalgurad Ramchandra Padki - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary Application No. 126 of 1916
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Bom189; (1917)19BOMLR67
AppellantRaghavendra Raoji Kathawate
RespondentYalgurad Ramchandra Padki
Excerpt:
.....extraordinary jurisdiction:-;that the set-off should have been allowed, for in regard to both the claims the capacity, that is, the personal capacity of the parties was not varied. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind..........the district judge here has reversed the decree of the learned judge of trial, because in the district judge's view of the question of law it was not open to the defendant to urge by way of set off the claim which he did urge, that is to say, the claim that the amount of pay due to him by the plaintiff should be reckoned against the sum due to the plaintiff by him on the accounts. the district judge's view was that the plaintiff and the defendant did not till the same character in regard to the attempted set-off as they tilled in the suit and therefore rule 6 of order viii of the civil procedure code could not be applied., but looking to the illustrations of this rule and in particular comparing illustrations (a) and (b) with illustration (e), it appears to us that the district.....
Judgment:

Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.

1. The District Judge here has reversed the decree of the learned Judge of trial, because in the District Judge's view of the question of law it was not open to the defendant to urge by way of set off the claim which he did urge, that is to say, the claim that the amount of pay due to him by the plaintiff should be reckoned against the sum due to the plaintiff by him on the accounts. The District Judge's view was that the plaintiff and the defendant did not till the same character in regard to the attempted set-off as they tilled in the suit and therefore Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code could not be applied., But looking to the illustrations of this rule and in particular comparing illustrations (a) and (b) with illustration (e), it appears to us that the District Judge has misunderstood the provisions of the law. It is quite true to say that in regard to the plaintiffs' suit the plaintiffs' claim is based upon an account for goods supplied, whereas the claim attempted to be made by way of set off is in regard to wages due. But in regard to both these claims the capacity of the parties is not varied. 'The capacity in both the cases is nothing but the personal capacity, the claims being based upon a money demand. We make the rule absolute, set aside the District Judge's decree and remand the appeal to the District Judge to be decided on the merits. All that we have here decided is that under Order VIII, Rule 6, it is competent to the defendant to urge by way of set-off the claim which he seeks so to urge. Costs in the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //