Skip to content


Md. Abdul Rahim Vs. Mt. Izzatunnissa Bai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All72
AppellantMd. Abdul Rahim
RespondentMt. Izzatunnissa Bai
Excerpt:
.....board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the..........with meticulous precision. the plaintiff could only make a rough estimate of the value of the claim and that is what appears to have been done in the suit. we think that the costs were rightly assessed and the decree passed by the court below does not call for any interference. we dismiss the appeal under order 41, r, 11, civil p.c.
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for account. This suit was resisted upon every ground which was possible to human ingenuity. The Court of first instance overruled the plea of limitation raised by the defendant and came to the conclusion that the defendant in his capacity as manager of the property belonging to the family was liable to render an account of his stewardship. A preliminary decree was accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant was saddled with her costs. In the present appeal which relates only to costs it has been contended that the Court below ought no to have passed a decree for costs in plaintiff's favour in the preliminary decree-but ought to have stayed its hands till the time of the passing of the final decree. It is also pointed out that the plaintiff had overvalued her claim.

2. We are of opinion that the plaintiff as the successful party in the suit was entitled to a decree for costs and it makes no difference that the costs were allowed in the preliminary decree. There is nothing in principle which precludee the Court from assessing costs and passing a decree for costs in favour of the successful party in a suit for accounts in the course of the preliminary decree. In a suit for accounts the relief cannot be valued with meticulous precision. The plaintiff could only make a rough estimate of the value of the claim and that is what appears to have been done in the suit. We think that the costs were rightly assessed and the decree passed by the Court below does not call for any interference. We dismiss the appeal under Order 41, R, 11, Civil P.C.


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