Skip to content


Sitaram Poddar and ors. Vs. Hariram Poddar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in165Ind.Cas.24
AppellantSitaram Poddar and ors.
RespondentHariram Poddar and anr.
Excerpt:
letters patent (cal), clause 13 - petition for transfer from mofussil court to high court--application for particulars of statements--inherent jurisdiction to interfere and direct particulars--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vi, rules 1, 4. - .....i do not, however, think it necessary to examine the petition in detail from this point of view but the defendants will disregard the plaintiffs' request for particulars at their own risk. what i mean to say is this: when the application for transfer is heard the defendants would be strictly held to the rule that it is not permissible to import new matter in an affidavit in reply; in other words, any relevant statement which could have been incorporated in the petition or furnished by way of particular will be treated as new matter within the meaning of the rule and no attention will be paid to it if it finds a place in the affidavit in reply.4. i will deal with the costs of this application when i dispose of the petition for transfer. certified for counsel.
Judgment:

Panckridge, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff that he be furnished with particulars of various statements made in a petition asking for the transfer of a suit filed in the Howrah Court to this Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.

2. The defendant takes the point that I have no jurisdiction to direct particulars and that by reason of the language of Order VI, Rule 1, read with Rule 4 of the same order particulars can only be directed of allegations contained in a plaint or written statement.

3. I am reasonably clear that under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, I am entitled to interfere and direct particulars if I consider that a litigant is substantially embarrassed owing to lack of precision in a petition or affidavit. I do not, however, think it necessary to examine the petition in detail from this point of view but the defendants will disregard the plaintiffs' request for particulars at their own risk. What I mean to say is this: When the application for transfer is heard the defendants would be strictly held to the rule that it is not permissible to import new matter in an affidavit in reply; in other words, any relevant statement which could have been incorporated in the petition or furnished by way of particular will be treated as new matter within the meaning of the rule and no attention will be paid to it if it finds a place in the affidavit in reply.

4. I will deal with the costs of this application when I dispose of the petition for transfer. Certified for Counsel.


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