Skip to content


Moolchand Prop. Firm Lallimal Biharilal and ors. Vs. Ram Babu Vaishya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 204 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1961MP323
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 3, Rule 4 - Order 41, Rule 1
AppellantMoolchand Prop. Firm Lallimal Biharilal and ors.
RespondentRam Babu Vaishya
Appellant AdvocateAnand, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateKak, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - 1. this revision is directed against an order of the trial judge holding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also holding that plaintiff no......raised by shri kak that this revision must be taken to have been filed after 45 days inasmuch as shri anand did not file a power of attorney with the revision petition, but filed it later on, when the period of 45 days prescribed in the rules of this court had expired. in my opinion, this objection does not carry much force. it is true that shri anand did not file his power when he signed the revision and presented it to this court. he thought that he could act on the basis of his power filed in the trial court. i found that this was not correct because revision is not a continuation of the suit, but is altogether a separate proceeding. shri anand then filed a vakalatnama, and the delay was condoned on february 12, 1960, when the revision was admitted. the revision petition was in fact.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Shiv Dayal, J.

1. This revision is directed against an order of the trial Judge holding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also holding that plaintiff No. 10 could not be joined in this suit.

(After setting out the facts of the case, the judgment proceeded :)

6. A preliminary objection is raised by Shri Kak that this revision must be taken to have been filed after 45 days inasmuch as Shri Anand did not file a power of attorney with the revision petition, but filed it later on, when the period of 45 days prescribed in the Rules of this Court had expired. In my opinion, this objection does not carry much force. It is true that Shri Anand did not file his power when he signed the revision and presented it to this Court.

He thought that he could act on the basis of his power filed in the trial Court. I found that this was not correct because revision is not a continuation of the suit, but is altogether a separate proceeding. Shri Anand then filed a vakalatnama, and the delay was condoned on February 12, 1960, when the revision was admitted. The revision petition was in fact filed within 45 days. Omission to file a vakalatnama was an irregularity and it could be cured. The preliminary objection is, therefore, overruled.

(The rest of the judgment is not material forthis report -- Ed.)


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