TMI Blog1951 (9) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 16-5-1951 allowing the appeal against an order of Mr. Kartar Singh Chadha Subordinate Judge and remanding the case for trial. 2. The facts of the case are that five alienations were made-one by the father Sulekh Chand on 14-11-1930 for a sum of ₹ 3,000/-, three others by the Official Receiver one on 28-2-1935 and two on 15-8-1946, and the 5th on 12-4-1932 in a Court sale in executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting the plaint but this was dismissed on the ground that it did not lie under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. 4. The order rejecting the plaint was appealed against in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, who held that the order in regard to the three sales made by the Official Receiver was correct as also the valuation put in regard to the other two sales, and therefore he all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make up the deficiency in court-fee which they did not do and the Court rejected the plaint. Mr. Puri submits that soon after the order of rejection was passed an amended plaint was put in with the correct court-fee in regard to the three alienations made by the Official Receiver, but the learned trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition for review. In my opinion In these circumstances th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its which had all been combined in one and therefore in this particular case the rejection of a part was nothing more than rejection of three plaints. But the suit was brought on one plaint and not five suits were brought. The law does not change merely because the plaintiff chooses in one suit to combine several causes of action against several defendants which the law allows him. It still remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
