Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 27

Order VII, rule 11

1. Order VII, rule 11 (c) provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so. Some controversy seems to exist on the question whether granting of time under this rule is mandatory. One view is, that the matter falls outside section 149 and is entirely governed by Order VII, rule 11, which is a special provision and, therefore, the party is entitled to demand some time for making good the deficiency1-2-3. In a Bombay case4, both the provisions were considered but the right to demand time was assumed5. Another view is, that the grant of time is discretionary6, on the ground that the authority to grant time is in section 149 and not in Order VII, rule 11, which is a disabling provision.

2. In a recent case7, a single Judge of the Bombay High Court, though stating there was much to be said in favour of the latter view, had to take a different view because of the High Court's own earlier decision.

3. The Madras High Court has made an express amendment to this rule which, in substance, provides that the granting of the time is a matter of discretion. The question whether the Madras amendment should be adopted has been considered, but it is felt unnecessary to insert any such provision.

1. Radha Kanta v. Debendra Narayan, ILR 49 Cal 880: AIR 1922 Cal 506 (508). (Mookerjee and Cuming JJ.).

2. Subba Reddy v. Venkatanarasimha Reddi, AIR 1937 Mad 266.

3. Venkanna v. Achutaramanrui, AIR 1938 Mad 542 (543), (Venkatasubba Rao J.).

4. Achut Ramchandra v. Nagappa, AIR 1914 Bom 249 (250). (Batchelor and Shah JJ.) (traces history of the rule).

5. Baijnath v. ilmeshwar, AIR 1937 Pat 550 (FB).

6. Ship Charan v. Behari Lal, AIR 1941 Oudh 30.

7. Ram Kishan v. Nathu, AIR 1959 Bom 86. (Mudholkar J.) (Reviews case-law).

Order VIII-Heading

This is consequential1.

1. See Order 8, rules 6A-6G (counter-claim).

Order VIII, rule 1 and obligatory written statement

A recommendation has been made in the Fourteenth Report1 to the effect that the filing of a written statement must be made obligatory in all cases. After some consideration, it has been felt that such a rigid provision need not be inserted, as it may work hardship on ignorant or illiterate people residing in villages.

1. 14th Report, Vol. I.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys