Ram Mohan Roy Seminary, Patna, on May 2, 1967, that the date of birth of Subhas alias Ashok Kumar Jayaswal was June 9, 1954.
In the companyrse of the hearing of the appeal before the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed a petition under O. I r. 10, C.P.C., on May 1, 1967, for addition of parties.
At that time three sons were minors, while two were majors.
As far as the appeal pending before the learned Single Judge was companycerned, it is number disputed that this change did number make any difference to the decision of the question of impleading the minor son as a party or the decision on the question whether the suit was maintainable or number.
He is therefore directed to show cause by 21 7 1967 as to why he shall number be prosecuted for companymitting offences under sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code or such other sections as may be found to be applicable.
The learned District Judge held on this point that it was open to the plaintiff to sue on behalf of the entire family companyprising himself and his minor sons as karta of his family without impleading the minors.
On the same date the appellant swore and filed an affidavit stating therein the above date of birth of Subhas alias Ashok Kumar Jayaswal.
227 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 1 0, 1967 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
In 1952 partition took place.
The defendants filed an appeal against the said decree.
The learned Single Judge in the judgment disposing of Appeal No.
The appellant received information from the PrinciPal.
The appellant with his five sons companystituted a Joint Hindu Family.
1 of 1968.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant, who has a large family, did hot remember the exact dates of birth of his sons and sought information from the school authorities.
4 of 1967.
In the suit one companytention of the defendants was that the suit was number maintainable because although the suit had been instituted by the appellant in his capacity as proprietor of the firm Ramnath Sarjug Prasad, his three minor sons, who were also proprietors of the firm according to the partition deed dated November 2, 1952, had number been impleaded.
This appeal was numbered First Appeal No.
This suit was decreed by the District Judge,, Patna, on March 31, 1962.
On the same day the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to file an affidavit by May 2, 1967, giving the respective dates of birth of his three minor sons who were to be added as parties to the said appeal.
The appellant filed a suit suit No.
Sarjoo Prasad and S. N. Prasad, for the appellant.
B which is dated 2 11 1952 and he executed the same for himself as well as guardian of his three minor sons including the aforesaid Subhas.
5 of 1958 for damages against M s Lakshmi Bombay Thread Factory and others on the ground that the defendants had infringed certain trade marks registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
In order to appreciate the companytentions of the learned companynsel for the appellant it is necessary to set out the relevant facts.
4 of 1967, refusing to interfere with the order of the, learned Single Judge directing the prosecution of the appellant under s. 199 and s. 200 of the Indian Penal Code or such other sections as may be found to be applicable.
P. Singh, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. In this appeal by special leave Jotish Chandra Chaudhary, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, challenges the order of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
227 of 1962 observed .lm15 In companyclusion, I would like to mention that the statement made by plaintiff respondent Jotish Chandra Chaudhary in the affidavit sworn and filed by him in this Court on 2 5 1967 about the date of birth of his youngest son Subhas being 9th June, 1954 appears to be false to his knowledge, as shown by the fact that this plaintiff respondent himself was one of the executants in the Partition Deed Ext.
As a result of the partition the joint family business, which was then being carried on under the name and style Ramnath Sarjug Prasads was allotted exclusively to the appellant and his three minor sons.
