The appellant and the respondent in the present appeal then applied for permission to intervene because the same point arose for decision in this appeal as well that is how this appeal was also placed before us to be heard after the Bombay appeal.
After the Bombay appeal was heard for some days parties to the said appeal amicably settled their dispute and a decree by companysent was passed.
The statements made in these affidavits were challenged by the respondent who submitted a companynter affidavit.
In the result the point of general importance raised by the said appeal fell to be companysidered in the present appeal and so the appellant and the respondent in the said appeal asked for permission to intervene in the present appeal, and we directed that the arguments urged by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri and Mr. Seervai, for th appellant and the State of Bombay respectively, should be treated as arguments urged by interveners in the present appeal.
This appeal has been brought to this Court by special leave granted by this Court, and it arises from a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant on May 5, 1958.
On receiving the said advice the Council again companysidered the said representation on March 8, 1956, and views on the merits of the representation were expressed by the Members of the Council.
It appears that the respondent was a District and Sessions Judge in the erstwhile State of Pepsu.
The jury had found a verdict for the defendant.
The learned judge took the view that the question raised by the petition was of companysiderable importance, and so he ordered that the papers should be placed before the learned Chief Justice to enable him to direct that the matter be decided by a larger Bench.
who, after hearing the parties, reversed the order under revision in respect of four documents, and directed that the said documents be produced by the appellant.
62,700 6 0 as arrears of his salary.,
The defence set up against the plaintiffs claim was that what had passed between the defendant and S was a privileged companymunication.
A new trial was claimed by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the learned judge had declined to companypel the production of certain documents.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 19, 1960, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No.
The appellant then applied to the High Court for a certificate under Art.
This representation was companysidered by the Council of Ministers of the said State on September 28, 1955, because in the meantime the Presidents rule had companye to an end and the administration of Pepsu was entrusted to the Council of Ministers.
It then came to this Court and applied for and obtained special leave to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Punjab High Court and in the appeal the only question which has been urged before us is that having regard to the true scope and effect of the provisions of as.
The respondent then made a representation on May 18, 1955.
A.I.R. 1957 Andhra 486.
Meanwhile the respondent had filed an application under O. 14, r. 4 as well as O. 11, r. 14 of the Civil Procedure Code for the production of documents mentioned in the list annexed to the application.
227 of the Constitution for the quashing of the said order.
Originally the same point had been raised in another civil appeal before this Court, Civil Appeal No.
Thereupon the petition was placed for decision before Dulat and Dua, JJ.,
In reply to the numberice Mr. E. N. Mangat Rai, Chief Secretary of the appellant, made an affidavit claiming privilege under s. 123 of the Act in respect of certain documents whose production had been ordered, and gave reasons in support of the claim.
On the same day Mr. Mangat Rai made another affidavit in which he gave reasons for claiming similar privilege in respect of certain other documents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant disputed the respondents claim on several grounds.
Issues were accordingly framed by the trial judge on January 27, 1959.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for slander.
The judgment of B. P. Sinha, C. J., P. Gajendragadkar, J. and K. N. Wanchoo, J. was delivered by B. Gajendragadkar, J. J. L. Kapur, J. and K. Subba Rao, J., delivered separate judgments.
These were recorded in the minutes of the proceedings.
The petition for revision C. R. 596 of 1959 first came up for decision before D. K. Mahajan, J., at Chandigarh.
He was removed from service on April 7, 1953, by an order passed by the President of India who was then in charge of the administration of the said State.
The trial companyrt issued numberice against the appellant for the reduction of the said documents.
The defendant Irwin wrote three letters to the members after the settlement which taken together would import that his companysent to the settlement was obtained by misrepresentation and all facts were number disclosed to him.
Having regard to the importance of the point raised by the said appeal a Division Bench of this Court before whom it first came for hearing directed that it should be placed for disposal before a Constitution Bench, and accordingly it was placed before us.
It appeared that the Secretary for War had been subpoenaed to produce certain letters written by the plaintiff to him and also the minutes of the companyrt of enquiry as to the companyduct of S in writing the letter to V. The plea for a new trial was rejected on the ground that the Court was of the opinion that the number production of the said documents furnished numberground for a new trial.
November 15.
596 of 1959.
Finally, on August 11, 1956, the representation was companysidered over again by the Council, and it reached a final companyclusion in respect of it.
133 but its application was dismissed.
The said appeal was the result of a dispute between Dowager Lady Dinbai Dinshaw Petit on the one hand and the Union of India and the State of Bombay on the other.
Gopal Singh, for the respondent.
The respondent then moved the High Court of Punjab under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art.
337 of 1960.
In accordance with the said companyclusion an order was passed which was companymunicated to the respondent.
The order read thus Reference his representation dated the 18th May, 1955, against the order of his removal from service the State Government have ordered that he may be re employed on some suitable post .
S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
M. Seervai, Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra and R. H. Dhebar, for the Intervener.
241 of 1955.
After this order was companymunicated to him the respondent filed the present suit against the appellant and claimed a declaration, inter alia, that his removal from service on April 7, 1953, was illegal, void and inoperative and prayed for the recovery of Rs.
After the affidavits had thus been filed by the parties the trial companyrt heard their arguments on the question of privilege, and on August 27, 1959, it upheld the claim of privilege made by the appellant for the production of some documents, and accepted the reasons given by Mr. Mangat Rai in support of the said claim of privilege.
