Skip to content


Sakharam Balwant Peshwe and anr. Vs. Laxman Timbak Purandare and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom428; 79Ind.Cas.200
AppellantSakharam Balwant Peshwe and anr.
RespondentLaxman Timbak Purandare and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 92 - sanction granted for particular relief--other reliefs claimed in suit--procedure. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is..........only given to the institution of a suit for the specific purpose of settling a scheme. in spite of that order the plaint was filed on the 12th february 1921 asking, in addition to the prayer for a settlement of the scheme, for the other reliefs for which sanction had been refused by the collector. that, no doubt, was very improper. it did not follow on that account that the plaintiffs suit, so far as it was covered by the collector's sanction, was not entitled to be heard on its merits. therefore, the appeal must be allowed and the case must be remained to the district judge to be heard on the merits with regard to the plaintiffs prayer that a scheme should be settled to secure the good management of the samthan in future.2. defendants are entitled to their costs in this court. costs.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs filed this suit praying for various reliefs with regard to an ancient temple of Shri Martand Dev which had been managed by a Committee of five trustees since the year 1841. They asked the sanction of the Collector under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the institution of the suit for the purpose of obtaining the five reliefs set out in the application. The Collector replied that sanction was only given to the institution of a suit for the specific purpose of settling a scheme. In spite of that order the plaint was filed on the 12th February 1921 asking, in addition to the prayer for a settlement of the scheme, for the other reliefs for which sanction had been refused by the Collector. That, no doubt, was very improper. It did not follow on that account that the plaintiffs suit, so far as it was covered by the Collector's sanction, was not entitled to be heard on its merits. Therefore, the appeal must be allowed and the case must be remained to the District Judge to be heard on the merits with regard to the plaintiffs prayer that a scheme should be settled to secure the good management of the Samthan in future.

2. Defendants are entitled to their costs in this Court. Costs of the lower Court to be costs in the cause.


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