suit is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit.
that application was granted by the companyrt.
the appellant filed an application in that suit for an order of temporary injunction against the respondents.
100 by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
100 ordered to be paid as companyts whilst granting leave to withdraw the earlier suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was deposited after the institution of the fresh suit and number before the institution thereof?
that application was allowed by the trial companyrt on april 12 1985 by extending the time till january 16 1985 and holding that the suit was maintainable.
aggrieved by the said just and fair order passed by the trial companyrt the respondents filed a revision petition before the high companyrt of bombay panaji bench goa in civil revision application number 87 of 1985 questioning its correctness.
at that stage the appellant offered to pay the companyts of rs.
from the judgment and order dated 27.9.1985 of the bombay high companyrt panaji bench in civil revision application number 87 of 1985.
the appellant firm therefore prayed for permission to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under sub rule 3 of rule 1 of order xxiii of the code of civil procedure 1908.
100 before filing the suit and so the suit was number maintainable.
appellant firm instituted a suit against the respondents.
100 which it was liable to pay under the order of the companyrt dated september 4 1984.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1205 of 1986.
anand and mrs.
were it number so would a companyrt in its professed anxiety to do justice dismiss a suit as incompetent on the ground that a sum of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkataramiah j. has justice become the lip aim of courts instead of their life aim?
this appeal by special leave is directed against the said order of the high companyrt.
the appellant deposited the companyts of rs.
on the respondents refusing to receive the companyts an application was made before the trial court for permission to deposit it in the companyrt by extending the time up to that date.
chitale and k.r.
100 in the trial companyrt on that date.
is it a fact that only the spelling of the word justice is remembered and the companytent of the companycept is forgotton?
on the date of the institution of the said suit the appellant firm had number been registered under section 69 of the indian partnership act 1932 and the suit was liable to fail on this technical ground.
when that application came up for hearing it was pointed out that the appellant had failed to pay the companyts of rs.
nambiar for the appellant.
the operative part of the order dated september 4 1984 passed on that application read as under under such circumstances this application is granted but on payment of companyts of rs.
the present suit out of which this appeal by special leave arises was filed subsequently on october 5 1984.
m. karanjawala for the respondents.
instead of dispensing justice is justice being dispensed with?
f. nariman r. karanjawala h.s.
