https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289428 Non-compliance with Rule 11 and Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules, 1939 was treated as a curable plaint defect rather than an automatic ground for dismissal. The Court held that the rules, read as supplementary to the Code of Civil Procedure, are directory in the relevant sense: the use of "shall" does not by itself make every omission fatal, and the proper test is legislative intent and the consequence of breach. A plaintiff should ordinarily be given an opportunity to supply missing particulars, and dismissal follows only if the defect persists after such opportunity or if real prejudice is shown. As no prejudice was established, the decree was sustained. en-us Tue, 09 May 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:23:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289428 Non-compliance with Rule 11 and Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules, 1939 was treated as a curable plaint defect rather than an automatic ground for dismissal. The Court held that the rules, read as supplementary to the Code of Civil Procedure, are directory in the relevant sense: the use of "shall" does not by itself make every omission fatal, and the proper test is legislative intent and the consequence of breach. A plaintiff should ordinarily be given an opportunity to supply missing particulars, and dismissal follows only if the defect persists after such opportunity or if real prejudice is shown. As no prejudice was established, the decree was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 May 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289428