Skip to content


Parsotam Vithal Vs. Abdul Rehmanbhai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1889)ILR13Bom500
AppellantParsotam Vithal
RespondentAbdul Rehmanbhai
Excerpt:
service of summons - application for fresh issue--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) sections 99a and 72--limitation--practice. - 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 reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared.....charles sargent, c.j.1. the nazir is the proper officer of the court to whom, under section 72 of the code of civil procedure (act xiv of 1882), the summons is delivered for service. it is, therefore, for him to return the summons to the court as unserved, and this he does by countersigning the bailiff's endorsement. the one year would, therefore, run from 10th october 1887, and the application for a fresh summons is not too late.
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The nazir is the proper officer of the Court to whom, under Section 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), the summons is delivered for service. It is, therefore, for him to return the summons to the Court as unserved, and this he does by countersigning the bailiff's endorsement. The one year would, therefore, run from 10th October 1887, and the application for a fresh summons is not too late.


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