9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (12) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1913, was decreed. There were two preliminary issues in the suit. One was whether the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the admitted non-compliance with the provision of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code so far as the suit in question was concerned and the second one, was the issue on the merits, namely, whether the trust to the suit property put up by the respondents was bona fide and valid. If that issue was decided in the affirmative the income tax department's proceeding and the certificate were patently binding upon the trustees of the suit, because they were not parties to these proceedings. The court below rejected the statutory plea under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and on the merits it upheld the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unate that the court overlooked the implications of the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagchand Dagdusa v. Secretary of State for India. In the later case the suit was one for injunction and the Bombay High Court, from which the appeal was taken to the Privy Council, took the view that section 80 applied to regular suits and not to a suit for relief in the nature of an injunction. There was also an argument before the Judicial Committee that section 80 should not be applied in cases of hardship. It would be profitable to reproduce the observations of the Judicial Committee on this argument. " The argument that a statutory provision as to procedure is subject to some exception of cases where hardship or even irremediable harm might be cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court included other matters the observations of the Supreme Court on the point with which we are concerned are, conclusive and unambiguous. The court rejected the view taken in the High Court to the effect that section 80 was outside the purview of a suit under Order 21, rule 63. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that it appears that, on this question, there has been a divergence of judicial opinion in India. But, in our opinion, the view that suits under Order 21, rule 63, did not attract the provisions of section 80 is inconsistent with the plain, categorical and unambiguous words used by it. The Supreme Court relied upon the observations of the Privy Council which we have reproduced earlier in the judgment. Therefore, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
