Skip to content


Beniram and ors. Vs. Gaind and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 535 of 1970 with Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5669 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC789; (1981)4SCC209
AppellantBeniram and ors.
RespondentGaind and ors.
Excerpt:
.....could scrutinise the material on which the officers or authority contemplated by s. 57 had taken action against a person, such a legislation would be unconstitutional. (4) the provisions in ss. 55, 56, 57 and 59 of the act are not invalid on the ground that only the general nature of the material allegations against the person externed are required to be disclosed and that it would be difficult for him to get the matter judicially examined. the provisions are intended to be used in special cases requiring special treatment, that is, cases which cannot be dealt with under the preventive sections of the code of criminal procedure. (5)the legality of the order of externment cannot be im- pugned on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to bring the charge home to the..........pleaded in the plaint. at this stage mr. phadke wishes to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action or on a different cause of action. having considered the fact that non-pleading may prove a technical impediment and may result in the dismissal of the appeal which may impede a fresh adjudication if a point is to be made though belated, we consider it just and proper in the interests of justice to permit the appellant-plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit as stated hereinabove. we accordingly grant the permission subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay rs. 1,000/- by way of costs in this court within two months from today in addition to any costs paid already under the orders of the high court.2. as the suit.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We heard Mr. Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant for some time. After the discussion, at a certain stage, a contention was advanced by Mr. Phadke on a particular point, in the case and he conceded that it was not the case pleaded in the plaint. At this stage Mr. Phadke wishes to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action or on a different cause of action. Having considered the fact that non-pleading may prove a technical impediment and may result in the dismissal of the appeal which may impede a fresh adjudication if a point is to be made though belated, we consider it just and proper in the interests of justice to permit the appellant-plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit as stated hereinabove. We accordingly grant the permission subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs in this Court within two months from today in addition to any costs paid already under the orders of the High Court.

2. As the suit has been withdrawn this appeal becomes infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly, C.M.P. 5669/81 also stands disposed of.


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