Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Abdul Jalil Vs. Humera Bibi and ors.

Abdul Jalil vs Humera Bibi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 01, 1908
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/465236

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), Sections 36 66, 120, 588 - Order directing a party to appear in person--Section not mentioned under which personal appearance ordered--Appeal. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Jalil

Respondent

Humera Bibi and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
2Ind.Cas.463

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), sections 36 66, 120, 588 - order directing a party to appear in person--section not mentioned under which personal appearance ordered--appeal. - .....court to order attendance for party in person are sections 36, 66 and 120. the order appealed against does not state under which of these section it is passed. it appears to us that it cannot possibly be an order either under section 36 or 66. it is clear from the terms of the order that the learned subordinate judge considered that he was acting under the code of civil procedure. we are of opinion, therefore, that although he does not quote any section, he must be deemed to have been acting under section 120 of the code. we do not think that the mere omission to quote the section under which he acted 'would render the order one which is not appealable. section 588 of the code of civil procedure gives an appeal in every case whether under section 36, 66, or 120 in which a party is ordered to appear in person. we are of opinion that the appeal lies and we overrule the preliminary objection.2. coming to the merits of the case, and regarding the order as one passed under section 120, we are of opinion that the appeal must succeed. the appellant appeared by pleader. section 120 provides that if the pleader of a party refuses or is unable to answer any material question relating to the suit, and if the court is of opinion that the party whom he represents ought to answer and is likely to be able to answer if interrogated in person, in that case the court may order such party to appear in person. now the order under appeal gives no reason whatever to justify the order. it merely says that it is necessary that the male defendant should appear in person.' we do not think that such an order can be justified. we accordingly allow the appeal with costs and set aside the order of the court below directing the appellant to appear in person.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur directing the appellant, who was one of several defendants in a suit brought by the respondent Musammat Alia Bibi, to appear in person in his Court. The learned advocate for the respondents takes a preliminary objection that no appeal lies. The only sections of the Code of Civil Procedure which authorise a Court to order attendance for party in person are Sections 36, 66 and 120. The order appealed against does not state under which of these section it is passed. It appears to us that it cannot possibly be an order either under Section 36 or 66. It is clear from the terms of the order that the learned Subordinate Judge considered that he was acting under the Code of Civil Procedure. We are of opinion, therefore, that although he does not quote any section, he must be deemed to have been acting under Section 120 of the Code. We do not think that the mere omission to quote the section under which he acted 'would render the order one which is not appealable. Section 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives an appeal in every case whether under Section 36, 66, or 120 in which a party is ordered to appear in person. We are of opinion that the appeal lies and we overrule the preliminary objection.

2. Coming to the merits of the case, and regarding the order as one passed under Section 120, we are of opinion that the appeal must succeed. The appellant appeared by pleader. Section 120 provides that if the pleader of a party refuses or is unable to answer any material question relating to the suit, and if the Court is of opinion that the party whom he represents ought to answer and is likely to be able to answer if interrogated in person, in that case the Court may order such party to appear in person. Now the order under appeal gives no reason whatever to justify the order. It merely says that it is necessary that the male defendant should appear in person.' We do not think that such an order can be justified. We accordingly allow the appeal with costs and set aside the order of the Court below directing the appellant to appear in person.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial