9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Were it not so, would a Court in its professed anxiety to do justice, dismiss a suit as incompetent on the ground that a sum of ₹ 100 ordered to be paid as costs whilst granting leave to withdraw the earlier suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was deposited 'after' the institution of the fresh suit and not 'before' the institution thereof? Appellant firm instituted a suit against the respondents. On the date of the institution of the said suit the appellant-firm had not been registered under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the suit was liable to fail on this technical ground. The appellant firm, therefore, prayed for permission to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench (Goa) in Civil Revision Application No. 87 of 1985 questioning its correctness. The High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, after hearing both the parties allowed the petition holding that the suit was void ab initio since the costs of ₹ 100 which had to be paid under the order dated September 4, 1984 had not been deposited before its institution. This appeal by special leave is directed against the said order of the High Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Parties have cited before us a number of decisions : Gollapudi Seshayya v. Nadendla Subbayaya & Anr., A.I.R. 1984 Madras 877, Shidramappa Mutappa Biradar v. Mall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fails to comply with the said direction, then it will be open to the Court to reject the plaint, but if the amount of costs is paid within the time fixed or extended by the Court the suit should be deemed to have been instituted validly on the date of which it was presented. This view appears to be in consonance with justice whatever may have been the views expressed on the subject by the various High Courts so far. It does not militate against any express provision of law but on the other hand it advances the cause of justice. This view is also in accord with the spirit behind section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. All contrary views expressed by the various High Courts, therefore, stand overruled. In the instant case, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
