Skip to content


Shankar Govind Pathak Vs. Balkrishna Shankar Joshi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revisional Application No. 115 of 1925
Judge
Reported in(1926)28BOMLR521; 94Ind.Cas.783
AppellantShankar Govind Pathak
RespondentBalkrishna Shankar Joshi
Excerpt:
.....striking out from it that part of it which is beyond the jurisdiction. in such a case, the plaintiff can file a fresh suit in the proper court for causes of action as struck out. it is not competent to the court in such a case to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court for causes of action beyond jurisdiction, and to proceed on a certified copy of the plaint for causes of action within its jurisdiction. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] declaration as to forfeiture of book held, the power can be exercised only if the government forms opinion that said publication contains matter which is an offence under either of sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293, 295a of ..........then the plaintiff could file another suit in the dhulia court. we do not think it is provided for anywhere in the civil procedure code that the same suit could be going on in two different courts on the same plaint.3. rule will be made absolute and the suit will be heard on the merits. costs of this rule will abide the result.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt.,C.J.

1. We do not agree with the order of January 17, 1925, directing the suit to be struck off the file. The mistake which came in the plaintiff's way was due to the default of the Erandol Judge, who ought to have in the first instance returned the plaint with regard to the whole of the causes of action therein. Instead of doing that, he referred the plaintiff to the Dhulia Court in regard to a portion of the claim, thinking at that time that he could deal with the remainder. Thereafter, he changed his mind and found that he could not deal with the remainder of the claim. There is no reason why on that account the plaintiff should be debarred from prosecuting his claim in the Dhulia Court, either on the original plaint, or on the certified copy which was continued to be used in the Erandol Court, till finally the Erandol Court declined to deal with any part of the suit.

2. We think the original procedure adopted by the Erandol Judge was wrong. If he decided that he could deal with only one of the causes of action in the plaint, then he should have retained the plaint himself, and struck out from the plaint that part of it which he held was beyond his jurisdiction, and then the plaintiff could file another suit in the Dhulia Court. We do not think it is provided for anywhere in the Civil Procedure Code that the same suit could be going on in two different Courts on the same plaint.

3. Rule will be made absolute and the suit will be heard on the merits. Costs of this rule will abide the result.


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