{"id":270518,"date":"1965-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965"},"modified":"2015-04-07T22:41:59","modified_gmt":"2015-04-07T17:11:59","slug":"sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965","title":{"rendered":"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1068, 1966 SCR (1) 986<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSAWAI SINGHAI NIRMAL CHAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/09\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1068\t\t  1966 SCR  (1) 986\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1977 SC 148\t (7)\n R\t    1984 SC1043\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nCode of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 80 and O. 21, r.\n63-Claim suit against Government--Notice, if necessary\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  execution  of an order to:- restitution  of\t money,\t the\nrespondent Union of India-applied for attachment and sale of\ncertain\t immovable  ,properties as belonging to\t the  person\nfrom  whom  the.  money was claimed.   The  properties\twere\nordered to be attached, and the appellant claiming ownership\nof  the properties, objected to the attachment under O.\t 21,\nr. 58 .of the Civil Procedure Code. 1908. The objection\t was\nover-ruled and his application was dismissed.  Therefore, he\nfiled ;I Suit tinder O. 21, r. 63 and before filing the suit\ngave notice to the respondentt under s. 80 of the Code.\t  If\ns.  80\tapplied to the suit and the period  covered  by\t the\nnotice could be taken into account the suit was within\ttime\nbut  if s. 80 did not apply and the period of  notice  could\nnot be taken into account, the suit would be barred by time.\n-Die  trial  court  and High ,Court  answered  the  question\nagainst the appellant and dismissed the suit .its barred  by\ntime.\nIn appeal to this Court.\nHELD  :\t The  view that suits tinder O. 21, r.\t63  did\t not\nattract\t the  provisions of s. 80 is inconsistent  with\t the\nplain, categorical .1nd unambiguous words used by it.  [1993\nF]\nThe  material words used in s, 80 are wide and\tunambiguous;\nthey .,ire \"express, explicit and mandatory\" and it would be\ndifficult  to  except front their operation  any  proceeding\nwhich can be regarded as a suit against the government.\t The\nproceedings  which the aggrieved party ,commences by  virtue\nof  O.\t21,  r.\t 63 are intended to be\ta  suit.   They\t are\ncommenced by the presentation of a plaint as required by  s.\n26  of the Code, and art.  11<\/a> of the Limitition\t Act,  1908,\nunder  which  the  plea\t of limitation\twas  raised  in\t the\npresent, case, shows that the proceeding was a suit.  Such a\nproceeding under O. 21, r. 63 cannot he regarded as either a\ncontinuation of the objection proceedings under r. 58, or as\na  form\t of  ,in appeal against the order  passed  in  them,\nbecause\t the scope of the suit is different from  and  wider\nthan that of the investigation under r. 58.  In fact, it  is\nthe order made in the investigation under O. 21, r. 58\tthat\nis the cause of action of the suit under r. 63.\t The  object\nor main purpose of the notice is to give previous intimation\nto  the\t government about the nature of the  claim  which  a\nparty  wants to make against it.  'But that does not  affect\nthe  interpretation of the plain words of s. 80 [989  E,  G;\n991 C, E, 992 D]\nPhul  Kumari v. Ghanshyam Mishra<\/a> (1907) I.L.R. 35  Cal.\t 202\n(P.C.)\tand  Amar Nath Dogra v. Union  of  India<\/a>,  [1963]  1\nS.C.R. 657, explained.\nBhagchand  Dagadusa  v.\t Secretary of  State<\/a>  for  India  in\nCouncil and others. 54 I.A. 338, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 928 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
987<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 14, 1961  of
\nthe Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 57 of 959.
\nBishan\tNarain, S. N. Prasad and f. B.\tDadachanji, for\t the
\napellant.\n<\/p>\n
N. D. Karkhanis and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of law which  arises
\nin this appeal is whether a suit filed in pursuance of O. 21
\nr.   63\t of  the  Code\tof  Civil  Procedure  attracts\tthe,
\nprovisions  of s.80 of the Code.  This point arises in\tthis
\nway.   One  Phool  Chand, the  predecessor-in-title  of\t the
\nappellant  Sawai  Singhai Nirmal Chand,\t instituted  a\tsuit
\nagainst the respondent, the Union of India, in the Court  of
\nthe Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, and obtained
\na decree on 25-4-1951 for Rs. 24,234-14-0 and  proportionate
\ncosts  with  interest  @  4%  per  annum.   The\t  respondent
\nchallenged  the said decree by preferring an appeal  in\t the
\nHigh  Court.  Pending the appeal, the  respondent  deposited
\nthe decretal amount of Rs. 31.849-9-9. On December 14, 1952,
\nphool Chand withdrew Rs. 28.032-12-0 out of the said  amount
\nafter  furnishing due security in that behalf.\t Ultimately,
\nthe respondent’s appeal was partly allowed on June 26, 1954,
\nand the decretal amount was reduced to Rs. 10,971-15-6.\t  In
\nthe  result,  the total decretal amount due to\tthe  decree-
\nholder\tPhool Chand came to Rs. 12,691-13-6; and that  meant
\nthat  he  had  withdrawn Rs. 15,340-14-8 in  excess  of\t his
\nlegitimate dues.\n<\/p>\n
On September 4. 1954, the respondent applied for restitution
\nof the said amount and claimed interest thereon.  The Second
\nAdditional  District  Judge,  Jabalpur,\t allowed  the\tsaid
\napplication,  and in execution of it, the respondent  sought
\nfor  the recovery of the said amount by attachment and\tsale
\nof certain immovable properties of Phool Chand, mentioned in
\nthe application.  These properties were accordingly  ordered
\nto be attached.\t But, meanwhile, they had been sold by Phool
\nChand to the appellant by a registered sale deed executed on
\nJanuary 9, 1953.  That is why the appellant objected to\t the
\nsaid  attachment  under\t O.21 r. 58 of\tthe  Code.  but\t his
\nobjection  was over-ruled and his application was  dismissed
\nby  the Second Additional District Judge on April 16,  1957.
\nIt is this order which has led to the present suit under  0.
\n21 r. 63 of the code.\n<\/p>\n
Before the appellant filed the present suit on June  23,1958
\nin  the\t Court\tof  the\t First\tAdditional  District  Judge,
\nJabalpur, he gave
\n988<\/span>
\nnotice\tto the respondent under s. 80 of the Code on  April,
\n12,  1958.  In the said suit, he claimed a declaration\tthat
\nthe  properties in question could not be attached  and\tsold
\ninasmuch  as  the title in respect of  the  said  properties
\nvested in him by virtue of a valid sale deed executed in his
\nfavour\tby  Phool  Chand.  The\tappellant  also\t claimed  an
\ninjunction  restraining\t the respondent from  attaching\t and
\nselling the said properties.\n<\/p>\n
In defence, the respondent raised a plea of limitation.\t  It
\nis  common ground that the period of  limitation  prescribed
\nfor a suit under O. 21 r. 63 by Article 11<\/a> of the Limitation
\nAct<\/a>  is one year from the date of the order under O. 21.  r.\n<\/p>\n
58.   The  respondent urged that s. 80 of the Code  did\t not
\napply to the present suit; and so, the period covered by the
\nnotice\tserved by the appellant on the respondent could\t not
\nbe excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation in the
\npresent\t case.\tIt is not disputed that if s. 80<\/a> applies  to
\nthe present suit and the period covered by the notice can be
\ntaken into account, the suit is within time.  It is also not
\ndisputed  that if s. 80<\/a> does not apply to the  present\tsuit
\nand  the period of the notice cannot be taken into  account,
\nthe  suit  is  barred by time; and so,\tat  the\t preliminary
\nstage, the only question which fell to be determined on\t the
\npleadings  of the parties was whether s. 80<\/a> applies  to\t the
\npresent\t suit.\t Both the learned trial Judge and  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Jabalpur,\thave  answered\tthis
\nquestion against the appellant, and the suit has, therefore,
\nbeen  dismissed\t as  barred by time.   It  is  against\tthis
\ndecision  that the appellant has come to this Court  with  a
\ncertificate granted by the said High Court.  ‘Mat is how the
\nonly  point  which  calls for our decision  in\tthe  present
\nappeal\tis  whether  s. 80 of the Code\tapplies\t to  a\tsuit
\ninstituted in pursuance of the provisions of O. 21 r. 63.
\nLet us begin by referring to the provisions of O. 21 rr.  58
\nand  63. O. 21 r. 58 deals with the investigation of  claims
\nto,  and objections to attachment of,  attached\t properties.
\nIt  is\tunder  this rule that a\t person\t whose\tproperty  is
\nwrongfully attached in execution of a decree passed  against
\nanother,  is entitled to object to the said attachment.\t  On
\nsuch  an application being made, a summary  enquiry  follows
\nand the attachment is either raised or is not raised and the
\nobjection  to  attachment  is  allowed\tor  is\tnot  allowed
\naccording  as the Court trying the application is  satisfied
\nthat the objector is or is not justified in objecting to the
\nattachment.  After the final order is passed on– way or the
\nother  as  a  result  of  the  investigation  made  in\tsuch
\nproceedings,  r. 63 comes into operation.  It provides\tthat
\nwhere  a  claim\t or an objection  is  preferred,  the  party
\nagainst whom an order is made may institute a suit to
\n989<\/span>
\nestablish  the\tright  which he claims to  the\tproperty  in
\ndispute,  but, subject to the result of such suit,  if\tany,
\nthe order shall be conclusive.\tIt is thus plain that  where
\nan order is passed in objection proceedings commencing\twith
\nr.  58, it would be final subject to the result of the\tsuit
\nwhich  a party aggrieved by such order may  ,institute;\t and
\nthat  means that if a party is aggrieved by an order  passed
\nin  these proceedings, he can have the said order set  aside
\nor  reversed by bringing a suit as provided by r. 63  itself
\nand  such  a suit has to be filed within one year  from\t the
\ndate of the impugned order.  That is the nature of the\tsuit
\nwhich the appellant has brought in the present case.
\nIn  considering the question whether this suit falls  within
\nthe  purview of s. 80 of the Code, it is necessary  to\tread
\nthe  relevant  portion of s. 80<\/a> itself; it  provides,  inter
\nalia,\tthat  no  suit\tshall  be  instituted  against\t the
\nGovernment  until  the expiration of two months\t next  after
\nnotice\tin  writing  has been delivered to or  left  at\t the
\noffice\tof the authorities specified by clauses (a),  (b)  &\n<\/p>\n
(c);  and it further provides that such notice\tshall  state
\nthe  cause  of action, the name, description  and  place  of
\nresidence  of the plaintiff and the relief which he  claims;
\nand  the plaint shall contain a statement that\tsuch  notice
\nhas been so delivered or left.\n<\/p>\n
It  would be noticed that the material words used in  s.  80<\/a>
\nare  wide and unambiguous; they are “express,  explicit\t and
\nmandatory”,  and it would be difficult to except from  their
\noperation  any\tproceeding which can be regarded as  a\tsuit
\nagainst\t  the\tGovernment.    While   dealing\t with\t the
\napplicability of s. 80<\/a>, the question to ask is: is it a suit
\nagainst the Government or not?\tIf it is, then s. 80<\/a> by\t the
\nvery  force  of\t its  words must  apply.   We  have  already
\nreferred  to the provisions of O. 21 r. 63.  In\t terms,\t the
\nsaid   rule   provides\tthat  the  order   passed   in\t the
\ninvestigation  proceedings shall be conclusive,\t subject  to
\nthe  result  of\t a  suit  which\t the  aggrieved\t party\t may
\ninstitute.   So, there can be no doubt that the\t proceedings
\nwhich  the aggrieved party commences by virtue of  the\tpro-
\nvisions of O. 21 r. 63, are intended to be a suit.  In fact,
\nthe   present\tproceedings   have   commenced\t with\tthe-
\npresentation  of a plaint as required by s. 26 of the  Code;
\nand  the very article under which the plea of limitation  is
\nraised\tagainst\t the  appellant shows that  it\tis  plea  in
\nrespect\t of the institution of a suit beyond the  period  of
\nlimitation.  It is thus plain that what we are dealing\twith
\nis a suit and that it is a suit against the Union of  India.
\nTherefore,  on a fair and reasonable construction of s.\t 80<\/a>.
\nwe  do not see how it is possible to hold that a suit  filed
\nunder  O. 21 r. 63 can be taken out of the provisions of  s.
\n80<\/a> of
\n990<\/span>
\nthe Code.  If we were to accede to the argument urged before
\nus  by\tMr.  Karkhanis\tfor the\t respondent,  we  would,  in
\nsubstance,  have to add certain words of exception in s.  80<\/a>
\nit-self, and that plainly is not permissible.
\nIt  is, however, said that the suit under O. 21 r. 63  is  a
\ncontinuation  of attachment proceedings and as such,  cannot
\nbe  regarded as a suit proper which is included\t within\t the
\npurview of s. 80<\/a>.  In support of the assumption that a\tsuit
\nfiled  under  O. 21 r. 63 is a\tcontinuation  of  attachment
\nproceedings, reliance is placed on the decision of the Privy
\nCouncil in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra<\/a>(1).  In that case,
\nthe  Privy  Council  was dealing with the  question  of\t the
\nproper court-fees to be paid for a suit under s. 283 of\t the
\nCode which was then in force, and which corresponds to 0. 21
\nr.  63 of the present Code.  Article 17<\/a> of Sch.\t It  of\t the
\nCourt  Fees  Act  (No.\tVII of 1870) with  which  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t was dealing was expressly made to apply to  “Plaint
\nor  Memorandum of Appeal in each of the folllowing suits:  1
\nTo alter or set aside a summary decision or order of any  of
\nthe  Civil Courts not established by Letters Patent,  or  of
\nany Revenue Court”; and the Privy Council had to examine the
\nquestion  as  to whether a suit filed under s. 283<\/a>  for\t the
\npurpose of the relevant article prescribing the,  court-fees
\nto be paid on the plaint was, or was not, a suit to alter or
\nset  aside a summary decision or order of any  civil  court.
\nIn  answering(, this question in the affirmative, the  Privy
\nCouncil observed that the difference between the words\tused
\nin  the plaint in the case before it and the words  used  in
\nthe  relevant  article\tof the Court Fees  Act<\/a>.\t was  merely
\nverbal.\t  In  the plaint, the plaintiff\t had  “categorically
\nasked from the Court the several decrees which she had asked
\nfrom the Subordinate Judge, and which the Subordinate  Judge
\nhad refused.” In other words, the plaint did not, in  terms,
\nask for the setting aside of the said decrees, or  reversing
\nthem.\tThe Privy Council did not attach any  importance  to
\nthis  verbal  difference  and held that\t in  substance,\t the
\nplaint\twas one filed with the object of getting  a  summary
\ndecision  of the court set aside as contemplated by s.\t283<\/a>.
\nIt  is\tin that connection that the Privy Council  made\t the
\nobservation on which reliance has been placed by the  courts
\nbelow.\t Says the Privy Council, “Misted by the form of\t the
\naction\tdirected  by s. 283<\/a>, both parties have\ttreated\t the
\naction as if it were not simply a form of appeal, but as  if
\nit  were  unrelated  to\t any decree  forming  the  cause  of
\naction.” In other words, the effect of the
\n(1) I.L.R. 35 Cal. 202
\n991<\/span>
\nobservations  made  by the Privy Council is just  this\tthat
\nwhen  a suit is brought under s. 283<\/a>, it is no more  than  a
\nsuit to set aside a summary decision by which the  plaintiff
\nfeels  aggrieved.   It would be noticed\t that  the  question
\nwhich had been raised before the Privy Council had reference
\nto the payment of proper court fees; and the decision of the
\nPrivy Council and its observations must, therefore, be\tread
\nin the light of the article which the Privy Council applied.
\nIt  would,  we\tthink, be unreasonable to  extend  the\tsaid
\nobservations   to  the\tPresent\t case  and  treat  them\t  as
\nenunciating  a proposition of law that for all\tpurposes,  a
\nsuit  brought under O. 21 r. 63 is either a continuation  of
\nthe objection proceedings, or is a form of an appeal against
\nthe order passed in them.  In our opinion, this extension is
\nnot  justified,\t because the Privy Council  could  not\thave
\nintended  to lay down such a broad proposition.\t  Therefore,
\nthe argument that the present suit is outside the purview of
\ns.  80\tof  the Code because it is  a  continuation  of\t the
\nattachment proceedings, must be rejected.
\nIn this connection, we ought to bear in mind that the  scope
\nof  the\t enquiry under O. 21 r. 58 is very limited,  and  is
\nconfined  to  questions of possession as  therein  indicated
\nwhile suit brought under O. 21 r. 63. would be concerned not
\nonly  with  the question of possession, but  also  with\t the
\nquestion  of  title.   Thus the scope of the  Suit  is\tvery
\ndifferent  from\t and wider than that  of  the  investigation
\nunder  O.  21 r. 58.  In fact. it is the order made  in\t the
\nsaid  investigation that is the cause of action of the\tsuit
\nunder  O. 21 r. 63.  Therefore, it would be,  impossible  to
\nhold that such a suit is outside the purview of s. 90 of the
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tnext  contended that no notice can  be\tsaid  to  be
\nrequired for suits under O. 21 r. 63, because the  principal
\nobject\tfor  encting  s. 80<\/a> is absent in the  case  of\tsuch
\nsuits.\tThe argument is\t that  the  requirement\t about\t the
\nstatutory notice prescribed by s.  80<\/a> proceeds on the  basis
\nthat it is desirable lo give such notice  to afford\t the
\nGovernment an opportunity to consider whether the claim made
\nagainst\t it  should  be settled\t or  not.   The\t Legislature
\nthought that if the Government is informed beforehand  about
\ncivil  actions\tintended to be taken against it, it  may  in
\nsome  cases  avoid unnecessary litigation by  accepting\t the
\nclaims if it is satisfied that the claims are  well-founded.
\nIn the case of i suit under O. 21 r. 63, there is hardly any
\nneed  to  give\tSuch a notice, because\tthe  Government\t was
\nalready\t a  party in the investigation\tproceedings  and  it
\nknows what the appellants, case
\n992<\/span>
\nwas  in regard to the attachment sought to be levied at\t its
\ninstance.  Since the respondent knows all about the claim of
\nthe appellant in regard to the properties in question, it is
\nfutile\tand unnecessary to require that a notice  should  be
\ngiven  to the respondent before a suit can be filed  by\t the
\nappellant under O. 21 r. 6 3.\n<\/p>\n
In  support of this argument, Mr. Karkhanis has relied on  a\n<\/p>\n
-decision  of  this  Court in Amar Nath Dogra  v.  Union  of
\nIndia<\/a>(1).   In\tthat, case, one of the questions  which\t the
\nCourt  had  to consider was whether, if a suit\tagainst\t the
\nGovernment  is\twithdrawn  and a subsequent  suit  is  filed
\nsubstantially (in the same cause of action, the notice given
\nby  the\t plaintiff prior the institution of the\t first\tsuit
\ncould be said to satisfy the requirements of s.80 ofthe Code
\nin respect ofthe second suit; and this question was answered
\nin   the  affirmative.\twhile  upholding   the\t appealant’s
\n,contention  that the first notice should serve to meet\t the
\nrequirements  of s. 80<\/a>, this Court, no doubt, observed\tthat
\nthe  main  purpose of giving the notice isto  give  previous
\nintimation to the ‘Government about the nature of the  claim
\nwhich  a party wants to make against it.  But we do not\t see
\nhow the purpose, or the reason for requiring the notice\t can
\nalter  the  effect of the plain words used in s.  80<\/a>.\tWhat
\nthis  Court held in the case of Amar Nath Dogra(1) was\tthat
\nthe  notice given before the institution of the\t first\tsuit
\ncan  be said to be a good notice even for the  second  suit;
\nand  that  means that the notice was necessary to  be  given
\nunder  s. 80<\/a>. but it was not necessary to repeat it  in\t the
\ncircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
It  is significant that in a large majority of\tcases,\ttbhe
\nplea that the Government raises is that notice is  necessary
\nand  it\t is  generally\tcontended  that\t the  notice   being
\ndefective  in  one  particular or another,  makes  the\tsuit
\nincompetent; and in dealing with such pleas, the courts have
\nnaturally sought to interpret the notices somewhat liberally
\nand   have  sometimes  observed\t that  in,   enforcing\t the
\nprovisions  of\ts. 80, commonsense and\tsense  of  propriety
\n,should\t determine  the issue.\tIt is very unusual  for\t the
\nGovernment to contend that in a suit brought against it,  no
\nnotice\tis required tinder -s. 80.  It is plain that such  a
\nplea has been raised by the respondent in the present  case,
\nbecause\t it helps the respondent to defeat  the\t appellant’s
\nclaim  on  the\tground\tof  limitation.\t  In  any  case\t the
\ncontention based on the object or purpose of the notice\t can
\nhardly assist us in interpreting the plain words of s. 80<\/a>.
\n(1) [1963] 1 S.C.R. 657.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    993<\/span><\/p>\n
It will be recalled that prior to the decision of the  Privy
\nCouncil in Bhagchand Dagadusa & Others v. Secretary of State<\/a>
\nfor  India  in\tCouncil and others(1),\tthere  was  a  sharp
\ndifference  of opinion among the Indian High Courts  on\t the
\nquestion  as  to  whether  s.  80<\/a>  applied  to\tsuits  where
\ninjunction  was claimed.  The Privy Council held that s.  80<\/a>
\napplied\t “to  all  forms of suit  and  whatever\t the  relief
\nsought,,  including  a suit for an injunction.”\t In  dealing
\nwith the question about the construction of s. 80<\/a>, the Privy
\nCouncil\t took notice of the fact that some of the  decisions
\nwhich  attempted to exclude from the purview of s. 80<\/a>  suits
\nfor injunction, were influenced by the “assumption as to the
\npractical objects with which it was framed”.  They also pro-
\nceeded\ton the basis that s. 80<\/a> was a rule of procedure\t and
\nthat  any  construction which may lead to injustice  is\t one
\nwhich  ought not be adopted, since it would be repugnant  to
\nthe  notion  of justice.  Having noticed  these\t grounds  on
\nwhich  an  attempt was judicially made to  except  from\t the
\npurview\t of s. 80<\/a> suits, for instance, in  which  injunction
\nwas  claimed,  Viscount\t Sumner, who  spoke  for  the  Privy
\nCouncil,  observed that “the Act, albeit a  Procedure  Code<\/a>,
\nmust  be read in accordance with the natural meaning of\t its
\nwords”,\t and he added that “section 80<\/a> is express,  explicit
\nand  mandatory,\t and  it admits of no  implications  or\t ex-
\nceptions”.  That is why it was held that a suit in which  an
\ninjunction  is prayed, is still a suit within the  words  of
\nthe  section,  and to read any qualification into it  is  an
\nencroachment  on  the  function\t of  legislation.   In\t our
\nopinion,  these\t observations  apply  with  equal  force  in
\ndealing\t with the question as to whether a suit under 0.  21
\nr. 63 is outside the purview of s. 80<\/a> of the code.
\nIt  appears  that  on  this  question,\tthere  has  been   a
\ndivergence  of\tjudicial  opinion in  India.   But,  in\t our
\nopinion,  the  view  that suits under O. 21 r.\t63  did\t not
\nattract\t the provisions of s. 80<\/a>, is inconsistent  with\t the
\nplain, categorical and unambiguous words used by it.
\nThe  result is, the appeal is allowed, the decree passed  by
\nthe  courts below is set aside and the suit is\tremanded  to
\nthe  trial court for disposal in accordance with  law.\t The
\nappellant would be entitled to his costs from the respondent
\nin  this  Court and in the High Court.\tCosts in  the  trial
\ncourt would be costs in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 54 I.A. 338,
\nL8Sp.  C. 1.\/65-20
\n994<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1068, 1966 SCR (1) 986 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj) PETITIONER: SAWAI SINGHAI NIRMAL CHAND Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/09\/1965 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-270518","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-07T17:11:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-07T17:11:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965\"},\"wordCount\":3256,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965\",\"name\":\"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-07T17:11:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-07T17:11:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965","datePublished":"1965-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-07T17:11:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965"},"wordCount":3256,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965","name":"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-07T17:11:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawai-singhai-nirmal-chand-vs-union-of-india-on-24-september-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270518","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270518"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270518\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270518"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270518"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270518"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}