Skinner Vs. Orde and ors. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/449348 |
| Subject | Civil;Limitation |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Decided On | Dec-31-1969 |
| Judge | Robert Stuart, C.J. and ;Pearson, J. |
| Reported in | (1875)ILR1All230 |
| Appellant | Skinner |
| Respondent | Orde and ors. |
.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........plaintiff's offer to pay the amount of the fee chargeable on the plaint under the court fees act before the inquiry into his pauperism bad been concluded, and his application was not numbered and registered and assumed to be the plaint in the suit under the provisions of section 308, act vi if of 1809, in consequence of proof of his pauperism, hut in consequence of the payment by him of the proper fees. but there is no provision in the law which allows the application presented under section 299 of the code to be doomed the plaint in the suit when such application has been in effect revoked and superseded by the payment of the ides chargeable under the court fees act. in such a case; we conceive that the date of the presentation of the plaint and institution of the suit must he taken to he the date of the payment of the fees: and we are therefore unable to rule that the lower court has erred in declaring the present suit to have been instituted after the lapse of the period allowed by the law. we have no alternative hut to dismiss the appeal with costs.
1. The cause of action in this suit accrued to the plaintiff in August 1861, when his father died; and the period during which the suit might legally ho brought is 12 years. If the suit can he held to have been instituted on the 21st February 1873, the date on which the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was first presented to the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, it is clearly within time; and there can be no doubt that, had the application of the 21st February 1878, been granted, the suit would rightly he deemed to have been instituted on that date. Hut that application never was granted, and was indeed virtually withdrawn on the 27th November 1874, by the plaintiff's offer to pay the amount of the fee chargeable on the plaint under the Court Fees Act before the inquiry into his pauperism bad been concluded, and his application was not numbered and registered and assumed to be the plaint in the suit under the provisions of Section 308, Act VI If of 1809, in consequence of proof of his pauperism, hut in consequence of the payment by him of the proper fees. But there is no provision in the law which allows the application presented under Section 299 of the Code to be doomed the plaint in the suit when such application has been in effect revoked and superseded by the payment of the Ides chargeable under the Court Fees Act. In such a case; we conceive that the date of the presentation of the plaint and institution of the suit must he taken to he the date of the payment of the fees: and we are therefore unable to rule that the lower Court has erred in declaring the present suit to have been instituted after the lapse of the period allowed by the law. We have no alternative hut to dismiss the appeal with costs.