AMDOO MIYAN Vs. MAHAMED DAVOOD KHAN BAHADUR
MAHAMED DAVOOD KHAN BAHADUR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) WE concur in the decision of this Court in Appeal No. 230 of 1895 and must therefore hold that the fact that no notice of the petition was given to the defendants (the present petitioners) by the District Judge does not render his order granting leave to sue liable to be set aside--if the order was in accordance with law in other respects. WE, however, find that leave was granted on an unverified letter apparently not presented in Court enclosing a Mahazarnamah purporting to be from certain persons of the Mussalman community of Kurnool. WE think that the District Judge acted with material irregularity within the meaning of Section 622 of the Civil P. C., in treating such a letter as an application under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863. Section 647 of the Civil P. C. contemplates that 2 August, 1001 certain formalities of procedure be observed even in miscellaneous applications like the present, which are not suits. WE think that an application under Section 18 of the Act XX of 1863 should be duly verified and presented either in person or by pleader as in the case of plaints.
(2.) WE must, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge with costs in this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.