TMI Blog1976 (6) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ependent licences. This joint petition was entertained on 1-10-1975 and there being several such petitions, a common order was made as passed in Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1975. It may be mentioned that both before this Bench as well as in Bombay, several petitions challenging the provisions of this Ordinance and thereafter the Debt Relief Act were filed. In several petitions more than one money-lenders were joined as petitioners. As the matter being urgent, one set of court-fee which was affixed to such petition was held sufficient and by way of concession it was directed that qua each additional petitioner, court-fee b payable on his independent petition should be got deposited in the office of this Court and question of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on two petitions. The learned counsel counters the submissions on behalf of the petitioners by relying on the decisions, being , Uma Shankar Rai v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway; , Bishwarajan v. Secretary, R. K. Mission and AIR 1956 Mad 626, Mohammad Ibrahim v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. 6. To us it appears that the question is not open as far as the tenability and institution of such applications are concerned. The whole matter was considered by the Division Bench of this Court including some other decisions on which reliance is placed, in Civil Revn. Appln. No. 108 of 1968 (in Special Civil Apln. No 200 of 1968) decided on March 12, 1968: Firm Prekh Brothers v. The Administration of the City of Nagpur. The facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedure, that Section 141 of the Code itself does not make all the provisions of the Code applicable and it shows that the procedure of the Code has to be followed as far as it can be made applicable. A reported decision of another Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 109 of 1960 decided on 11-8-1960, The Mahatma Fuley Vegetable and Fruit Market Association v. The Corporation of the City of Nagpur was considered and there it was pointed out that upon the preponderant view taken in judicial decisions, the Bench had proceeded to examine whether the requirements of Order 1, Rule 1, were satisfied or not. The Bench quoted from the earlier judgment the following passage: Though, in a sense, the relief claimed by each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs the Code of Civil Procedure by itself is not applicable and may be applied as far as possible. The proceedings not being suit as contemplated by the Code, the provisions regarding suits are not attracted and the petitions to this Court should mainly be based on the individual claim or right asserted by the concerned petitioner. Thirdly, for the purpose of two or more persons joining together to initiate petition, the requirements of Order 1, Rule 1, Civil P. C., in a given case, may be applied provided all the conditions of that rule were fully satisfied without any difficulty in the matter of giving relief and adjudicating the cause. Lastly above all, the normal rule emphasised by the decision is that this extraordinary remedy is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
