1969 (12) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Code so far as the suit in question was concerned and the second one, was the issue on the merits, namely, whether the trust to the suit property put up by the respondents was bona fide and valid. If that issue was decided in the affirmative the income tax department's proceeding and the certificate were patently binding upon the trustees of the suit, because they were not parties to these proceedings. The court below rejected the statutory plea under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and on the merits it upheld the case of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit was decreed. In this appeal, since we are satisfied that the plea under section 80 should stand and that the judgment of the court below on this issue is wrong, in view o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court, from which the appeal was taken to the Privy Council, took the view that section 80 applied to regular suits and not to a suit for relief in the nature of an injunction. There was also an argument before the Judicial Committee that section 80 should not be applied in cases of hardship. It would be profitable to reproduce the observations of the Judicial Committee on this argument. " The argument that a statutory provision as to procedure is subject to some exception of cases where hardship or even irremediable harm might be caused if it were strictly applied might be used with equal cogency in connection with a code fixing the admissibility of evidence or with a limitation section, recognizing rights but barring remedies. For this, h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct that section 80 was outside the purview of a suit under Order 21, rule 63. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that it appears that, on this question, there has been a divergence of judicial opinion in India. But, in our opinion, the view that suits under Order 21, rule 63, did not attract the provisions of section 80 is inconsistent with the plain, categorical and unambiguous words used by it. The Supreme Court relied upon the observations of the Privy Council which we have reproduced earlier in the judgment. Therefore, is section 80 applies to all forms of suits, there is no reason why a suit under Schedule 2, rule 43, of the Civil Procedure Code (Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913), should be excluded from its scope. Th....