Skip to content


Bhogilal Kirpashankar Vs. Darasha Kooverji Contractor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary Application No. 212 of 1916
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom303; (1923)25BOMLR308
AppellantBhogilal Kirpashankar
RespondentDarasha Kooverji Contractor
Excerpt:
.....was necessary to place his representatives on the record.;even if in the case of an interlocutory appeal, the high court sends for the record for the purpose of dealing with that particular matter, for all other applications the suit is pending in the trial court. - 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..........was made by the trial court when the present applicant applied to be put on the record in the place of sorabji who was dead. at that time there was an appeal against an interlocutory order pending in the high court. the learned trial judge thought that on account of that appeal its functions were entirely suspended. even if in the case of an interlocutory appeal, the high court sends for the record for the purpose of dealing with that particular matter, for all other applications the suit-is pending in the trial court. therefore the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, since on the death of a party it is necessary to place his representatives on the record. it seems to me, therefore, that once we find that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction and.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. We think the initial error was made by the trial Court when the present applicant applied to be put on the record in the place of Sorabji who was dead. At that time there was an appeal against an interlocutory order pending in the High Court. The learned trial Judge thought that on account of that appeal its functions were entirely suspended. Even if in the case of an interlocutory appeal, the High Court sends for the record for the purpose of dealing with that particular matter, for all other applications the suit-is pending in the trial Court. Therefore the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, since on the death of a party it is necessary to place his representatives on the record. It seems to me, therefore, that once we find that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction and that error is at the root of all later proceedings, it is really not necessary to consider why the applicant has been still unsuccessful in getting his name on the record in the place of the deceased Sorabji. There has been a failure to exercise proper jurisdiction. On these grounds, we think the rule must be made absolute with costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court. Other costs will be costs in the cause. Rule made absolute.


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