9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaint is properly signed. 2. Whether the suit in the Basra Court was decided on the merits. 3. Whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the retention of Rs. 5,000. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 2,000 out of the said sum of Rs. 5,000. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the plaint is properly signed A preliminary objection was raised by the defendants that the plaint was not properly signed, as it was signed by a person holding a special power of attorney rather than a general power of attorney. The relevant rules are governed by Order III, Rule 2, and Order VI, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, as modified by the rules of the High Court of Bombay. According to these rules, only persons holding general powers of attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the court's jurisdiction are authorized to sign the plaint. The plaintiff, residing in Basra, Iraq, had given a power of attorney to a person in Bombay. Upon examining the terms of the power of attorney, it was determined to be a special power of attorney, as it authorized actions only in connection with the realization of a specific decree amount. This conclusion was supported by the precedent set in the case of Fardaji Kasturji v. Chandrappa. Consequently, the court found that the power of attorney did not meet the requirements of the amended rule. However, since the plaintiff was present in court, he was allowed to amend the plaint by signing it himself, subject to paying the costs of the proceedings up to that date. Issue 2: Whether the suit in the Basra Court was decided on the merits The principal issue was whether the suit in the Basra Court was decided on the merits. The facts revealed that the defendants had a branch in Basra and were involved in a transaction with the plaintiff, leading to a deposit of Rs. 5,000. The plaintiff's counterclaim for this amount was not awarded due to non-payment of court fees. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Basra Court, where the defendants were represented by a pleader who stated he could not defend the suit. A decree was passed against the defendants for Rs. 5,000. The case was governed by Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that a foreign judgment is conclusive unless it falls under specific exceptions, including when it has not been given on the merits. The court examined whether the Basra Court's judgment was on the merits. It was noted that the defendants were served with summons and had notice of the suit. The pleader representing the defendants had instructions to apply for an adjournment, which was refused, and the court proceeded to pass a decree based on the plaintiff's evidence and previous proceedings. The court referred to several cases, including Keymer v. Visvanatham Reddi and Janoo Hassan v. Mahamad Ohuthu, to determine that the judgment was on the merits, as the defendants had notice and an opportunity to defend but chose not to. Therefore, the judgment was conclusive, and the court could not go behind it. Issue 3: Whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the retention of Rs. 5,000 Since the court found that the Basra Court's judgment was conclusive and on the merits, it did not consider the other issues, including whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the retention of Rs. 5,000. Issue 4: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 2,000 out of the said sum of Rs. 5,000 Similarly, the court did not consider whether the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 2,000 out of the Rs. 5,000, as the conclusive nature of the Basra Court's judgment rendered further examination unnecessary. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Basra Court's judgment was on the merits and, therefore, conclusive. As a result, the plaintiff was granted a decree against the defendants as prayed for in the plaint, with costs, and interest on the judgment at six percent. The plaintiff was also directed to pay the costs of the proceedings up to the date of the interlocutory judgment.
|
