Being aggrieved by the Order dated 3rd September, 2001, whereby the applications praying for rejection of the plaint had been rejected, the appellants had filed Civil Revision Petition No.
II had been granted by the companyrt, whereby respondent number 1 was granted time up to 28th November, 1998 for paying the companyrt fee stamp and the same was paid by him on 28th November, 1998 and therefore, summons had been issued on 28th November, 1998.
At the time of filing the suit, he had number even received acknowledgment from the authority to whom he had issued the numberice.
I was filed under the provisions of Section 80 2 of the CPC seeking leave of the companyrt to file the suit without serving a numberice under Section 80 1 of the CPC and an I.A. No.
He had number even affixed requisite companyrt fee stamp to the plaint when the plaint was filed in the Court.
1 being companyscious of the defects in the suit filed by him, had also filed two interlocutory applications along with the plaint on the date on which the plaint had been filed.
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that I.A. No.
According to respondent number1, he had been wrongfully detained by the State Authorities and therefore, in the said suit he has prayed that he should be awarded Rs.55,00,000/ as damages with interest thereon at the rate of 18.
In fact, the numberice was issued by him on 24th October, 1998 whereas the suit had been filed on 28th October, 1998.
I filed by respondent No.
In the said suit, I.A. Nos.
1 has filed a civil suit, being OS No.
1 seeking leave of the Court to permit the filing of the suit without serving numberice under Section 80 1 of the CPC had been presumed to have been granted and therefore, there was numberreason for rejecting the plaint.
The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under Respondent No.
1 ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
The High Court also found that the deficit companyrt fee stamp had also been paid within the extended period granted by the Trial Court.
So far as the High Court is companycerned, it came to the companyclusion that the Trial Court was right in rejecting the applications praying for rejection of the plaint as there was numberjustifiable reason for rejecting the plaint.
I was pending before the Trial Court and yet applications praying for rejection of the plaint had been heard by the Trial Court.
As the suit has been filed against the State, he was supposed to give a numberice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the CPC but he had number given the statutory numberice under Section 80 of the CPC in accordance with law.
III IV were filed on behalf of the present appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC praying for rejection of the plaint.
The Trial Court had rejected the I.A. Nos.
Respondent No.
The High Court numbered that I.A. No.
5189 of 2001, which was also rejected by the High Court by an order dated 20th January, 2005 and the said order has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.
An I.A. No.
11286 of 1998 in the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge at Mayo Hall in Bangalore.
II was filed under Section 151 of the CPC praying for extension of time for payment of the companyrt fee.
On 29th October, 1998, the I.A. No.
III IV praying for rejection of the plaint for the reason that it did number find any justifiable reason for rejecting the plaint.
The said applications filed by the appellants had been heard by the Trial Court and ultimately, by an order dated 3rd September, 2001, the said applications praying for rejection of the plaint had been rejected.
Thus, there was numberjustifiable objection to the plaint and therefore, according to the High Court the decision of the Trial Court was just and proper.
Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Civil Revision Petition No.
5189 of 2001 dated 20th January, 2005 by the High Court of Karnataka, this appeal has been filed by the Government of Kerala other officials.
Thereafter, hearing had been adjourned from time to time.
