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.

Sitaram Poddar and ors. Vs. Hariram Poddar and anr.

Sitaram Poddar and ors. vs Hariram Poddar and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 18, 1935
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/876492

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Letters Patent (Cal), Clause 13 - Petition for transfer from Mofussil Court to High Court--Application for particulars of statements--Inherent jurisdiction to interfere and direct particulars--Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Order VI, Rules 1, 4. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sitaram Poddar and ors.

Respondent

Hariram Poddar and anr.

Legal References

Reported In
165Ind.Cas.24

Excerpt

letters patent (cal), clause 13 - petition for transfer from mofussil court to high court--application for particulars of statements--inherent jurisdiction to interfere and direct particulars--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vi, rules 1, 4. - panckridge, j.1. this is an application on behalf of the plaintiff that he be furnished with particulars of various statements made in a petition asking for the transfer of a suit filed in the howrah court to this court under clause 13 of the letters patent.2. the defendant takes the point that i have no jurisdiction to direct particulars and that by reason of the language of order vi, rule 1, read with rule 4 of the same order particulars can only be directed of allegations contained in a plaint or written statement.3. i am reasonably clear that under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, i am entitled to interfere and direct particulars if i consider that a litigant is substantially embarrassed owing to lack of precision in a petition or affidavit. i do not, however, think it necessary to examine the petition in detail from this point of view but the defendants will disregard the plaintiffs' request for particulars at their own risk. what i mean to say is this: when the application for transfer is heard the defendants would be strictly held to the rule that it is not permissible to import new matter in an affidavit in reply; in other words, any relevant statement which could have been incorporated in the petition or furnished by way of particular will be treated as new matter within the meaning of the rule and no attention will be paid to it if it finds a place in the affidavit in reply.4. i will deal with the costs of this application when i dispose of the petition for transfer. certified for counsel.

Full Judgment

Panckridge, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff that he be furnished with particulars of various statements made in a petition asking for the transfer of a suit filed in the Howrah Court to this Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.

2. The defendant takes the point that I have no jurisdiction to direct particulars and that by reason of the language of Order VI, Rule 1, read with Rule 4 of the same order particulars can only be directed of allegations contained in a plaint or written statement.

3. I am reasonably clear that under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, I am entitled to interfere and direct particulars if I consider that a litigant is substantially embarrassed owing to lack of precision in a petition or affidavit. I do not, however, think it necessary to examine the petition in detail from this point of view but the defendants will disregard the plaintiffs' request for particulars at their own risk. What I mean to say is this: When the application for transfer is heard the defendants would be strictly held to the rule that it is not permissible to import new matter in an affidavit in reply; in other words, any relevant statement which could have been incorporated in the petition or furnished by way of particular will be treated as new matter within the meaning of the rule and no attention will be paid to it if it finds a place in the affidavit in reply.

4. I will deal with the costs of this application when I dispose of the petition for transfer. Certified for Counsel.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial