Skip to content


S.H. Kelkar and ors. Vs. Mandakini Bai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1218 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Kant163; AIR1970Mys163; ILR1969KAR819; (1969)2MysLJ228
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 23, Rule 1 - Order 33, Rule 1
AppellantS.H. Kelkar and ors.
RespondentMandakini Bai and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS.G. Sundaraswamy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateG. Dayananda, Adv.
Excerpt:
- right to information act, 2005 [c.a. no. 22/2005]section 2(b), (c) & (d); [k.l.manjunath, j] public authority held, a society registered under section 27 of the karnataka societies registration act, 1960 is not a public authority and the provisions of the right to information act, 2005 is not applicable. basava samithi/society is not created by any other law made by the state legislature. it is not a body owned or controlled or substantially financed by the government. it is also not a non-government organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. it is no doubt true that any society in karnataka established by few or many individuals is required to be registered under the karnataka societies act. it is also not in dispute a..........also, she applied for amendment fay way of reinstatement of the originally given up reliefs. the civil judge has granted the permission. hence this revision petition by the contesting defendants 1 to 3.2. although the reliefs were struck off, the original averments in the plaint were left intact. hence the opinion of the civil judge that the reliefs now sought to be reinstated flowed from or depended upon the averments already in the plaint and that therefore, no surprise or serious prejudice can be postulated, is not open to any serious criticism.3. the only substantial question for consideration is whether the striking out of the reliefs in the circumstances mentioned above can be equated to withdrawal of reliefs within the meaning of rule i of order 23 without the permission of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The suit was originally sought to be instituted in forma pauperis with five prayers. On refusal of leave to do so, the plaintiff struck off four reliefs from the plaint, paid Court fee on the fifth relief and the suit was registered accordingly. Subsequently when she was in possession of sufficient funds to pay the court-fee in respect of the omitted reliefs also, she applied for amendment fay way of reinstatement of the originally given up reliefs. The Civil Judge has granted the permission. Hence this Revision Petition by the contesting defendants 1 to 3.

2. Although the reliefs were struck off, the original averments in the plaint were left intact. Hence the opinion of the Civil Judge that the reliefs now sought to be reinstated flowed from or depended upon the averments already in the plaint and that therefore, no surprise or serious prejudice can be postulated, is not open to any serious criticism.

3. The only substantial question for consideration is whether the striking out of the reliefs in the circumstances mentioned above can be equated to withdrawal of reliefs within the meaning of Rule I of Order 23 without the permission of the Court so as to preclude the plaintiff from suing in respect of them.

4. It is difficult to accept the contention that such should be regarded as the legal effect of striking out reliefs. It will be seen that the withdrawal referred to In Rule I of Order 23 is a withdrawal subsequent to the institution, of a suit Here, striking out of the reliefs was before payment of the court-fee. Even without striking out the reliefs if a plaint is presented with sufficient court-fee only for one of the reliefs, the highest penalty which would be visited upon the plaintiff Is the rejection of the plaint so far as the prayers not supported by the court-fee are concerned. Such rejection does not preclude the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Such was the view taken by a Bench of the Patna High Court in Ram Lakshman Janki v. Mukund LaL AIR 1949 Pat 358 see para 15 at p. 361 of the Report.

5. There is therefore, no reason to disagree with the Civil Judge.

6. The Revision Petition is dismissed.

7. Petition dismissed.


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