Skip to content


Bir Gir and ors. Vs. Baldeo Bharthi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR22All269
AppellantBir Gir and ors.
RespondentBaldeo Bharthi
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 30 - numerous persons interested similarly in the result of a suit--permission given to some to sue on behalf of all--permission granted after the filing of the suit. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals..........issue to the various parties who, the defendants alleged, ought to be joined an plaintiffs in the suit, and that permission should be given to the plaintiffs to sue on their behalf. the permission asked for was granted, and the suit proceeded to trial and judgment. it is now contended (judgment having been given against the defendants) that the permission given after the suit had been instituted and after the defendants had been summoned, was a bad permission, and that therefore the trial was vitiated, and the decree a bad one. as to this contention it is sufficient to refer to the case of fernandez v. bodriques (1897) i.l.r. 21 bom. 784. in that case it was held by a pull bench that the permission required by section 30 of the code of civil prooedure may be given subsequently to the.....
Judgment:

Burkitt and Aikman, JJ.

1. In this appeal it is frankly admitted for the appellant that he has no case whatever on the merits. The learned advocate who appears for him raises a technical plea founded on the following facts. The plaintiffs aremahants of a religious body who style themselves Niranjani Akhara comprising hundreds of followers and worshippers. The persons originally claiming in the plaint were the mahants or heads of this body. An objection was taken by the defendants in their written statement that the plaintiffs alone could not sue and that it was necessary that all the other members of the akhara should join as plaintiffs. Upon this an application was made by the plaintiffs, purporting to be under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking that, as provided in that section, notices should issue to the various parties who, the defendants alleged, ought to be joined an plaintiffs in the suit, and that permission should be given to the plaintiffs to sue on their behalf. The permission asked for was granted, and the suit proceeded to trial and judgment. It is now contended (judgment having been given against the defendants) that the permission given after the suit had been instituted and after the defendants had been summoned, was a bad permission, and that therefore the trial was vitiated, and the decree a bad one. As to this contention it is sufficient to refer to the case of Fernandez v. Bodriques (1897) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 784. In that case it was held by a Pull Bench that the permission required by Section 30 of the Code of Civil Prooedure may be given subsequently to the filing of the suit. In that decision and in the reasoning on which it was based we fully concur. As remarked by the learned Chief Justice in that case, the question is only one of adding parties. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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