LexSAWAI SINGHAI NIRMAL CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SA WAI SINGHAI NIRMAL CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA September 2~, 1965 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIX.RI,. JJ.]- Code of Civll Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 80 and 0. 21, r. 63- Claim suit against governn1ent-Notice, if necessary. In execution of an ordeir for restitution of money, the respondent- :Union of India-applied for attachment and sale of certain immovable ,properties as belonging to the person from \vho1n the money was claimed. The properties were ordered to be atlacheO, and the appellant claiming ..O\VTiership of the properties, objected to the attachment under 0. 21, r. 58 ,of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The objection was over-ruled and .'his application was dismissed. Therefore, he filed a suit under 0. 21, r. 63 and before filing the suit gave notice to thel 1respondent under s. 80 of the Code. If s. 80 applied to the suit and the period covered by the -notice could be taken into account, the suit was within timer, but if "· 80 did not apply and the period of notice could not be taken inlo account,~ the suit would be barred by time. The trial court and High ·C.ourt answered the question against the appellant and dismissed the suit :as barred by time. In appeal to this Court, A • B c D HELD : The view that suits under 0. 21, r. 63 did not attract the pro- t.. visions of s. 80 is inconsistent with the plain, categorical and unambi- E .guous words used by it. [993 F] The material words used ill s. 80 arc wide and unambiguous; they :are "express, explicit and m3.ndatory" and it would be difficult to except iron1 their operation any proceeding which can be regrurded as a suit against the government. The proceedings which the aggrieved party ..commences by virtue of 0. 21, r. 63 are intended to be a suit. They are commenced by the presentation of a plaint as required by s. 26 of the Code, and art. 11 of the Limitation Act, 1908, under which the plea of limitation was raised in the present case, shows that the proceeding \Vas a suit. Such a proceeding under 0. 21, r. 63 cannot be regarded as either a continuation of the objection proceedings under r. 58, or as a form of an appeal against the order passed in them, becall.98, It.hoe scope of the ·suit is different from and wider than that of the investigation under r. 58. In fact, it is the order made in the investigation under 0. 21, r. 58 that is the cause of action of the suit under r. 63. The object or main purpose of the notice is to give previous intimation to the government about the nature of the claim which a party wants to make against it. But that does not affect the interpretation of the plain \VOrds of s. 80 [989 E, G; 991 C, E; 992 DJ P.Jiul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra, (1907) 1.L.R. 35 Cal. 202 (P.C.) ·and Amar Nath Dogra v.' Union of India, [1963] I S.C.R. 657, explained. F G • Bhagchand Da;::adusa v. Secretary of State for India in Council and, H •others. 54 I.A. 338, aopli;d. ~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 928 of - 1963. NIRMAL CHAND v. UNION (Gajendragadkar, C.J.) 987 A Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 14, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 57 of 1959. Bishan Narain, S. N. Prasad and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant. B N. D. Karkhanis and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of Jaw which arises in this appeal is whether a suit filed in pursuance of 0. 21 r. 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure attracts the provisions of C s. 80 of the Code. This point arises in this way. One Phool Chand, the predecessor-in-title of the appellant Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand, instituted a suit against the respondent, the Union of India. in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, and obtained a decree on 25-4-1951 for Rs. 24,234-14-0 and proportionate costs with interest @ 4 % per annum. The res- D pondent challenged the said decree by preferring an appeal in the High Court. Pending the appeal, the respondent deposited the decreta! amount of Rs. 31,849-9-9. On December 14, 1952, Phool Chand withdrew Rs. 28,032-12-0 out of the said amount after furnishing due security in that behalf. Ultimately, the res- pondent's appeal was partly allowed on June 26, 1954, and the E decretal amount was reduced to Rs. 10,971-15-6. In the result, the total decretal amount due to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.