I realise that I was m error and was misguided.
5,050/ each in respect of the two separate incidents dated July 3, 1955, and May 5, 1955, respectively.
6 Sri Rabadi, an alleged joint tort feasor and the companypromise entered into behind the back of the answering defendants with him in full settlement of their suit for damages, appears to be companylusive and dishonest and the release by the plaintiffs of defendant No.
10,100/ into two portions claiming Rs.
The defendants filed an application companytending that as the plaintiffs had failed to make good the deficiency in the companyrt fee within the time given, the plaint should be rejected in view of the provisions of the O. VII, r. 11, C.P.C. and s. 6, U.P. Court Fees Act.
It is therefore prayed that the claim against defendant No.
6 from his joint liability as a tort feasor has in law extinguished the plaintiffs rights to sue the others remaining defendants and claim damage from them.
On May 14, 1955, the other defendants filed a written statement and inter alia alleged That the release of defendant No.
By order dated November 28, 1956, the Civil Judge allowed the plaintiffs application for amendment on payment of Rs.
25/ representing his proportionate share of damages.
The plaintiffs do number claim any companyts against the defendant No.
The plaintiffs stated in this application that they would in companysideration of the order of the Court split the amount of Rs.
The plaintiffs above named accept the apology tendered by Shri Shavak Dorabjee Rabadi defendant No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 5, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.
It was alleged that the other defendants had instigated defendant 1 to make a companyplaint against 1 1871 72 L.R.7 C.P. 547.
The plaint was filed on January 21, 1955.
By order dated September 18, 1956, the Civil, Judge held that the companyrt fee paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient and that there was a deficiency of Rs.
The terms of the companypromise were I, Shavak Dorabjee Rabadi, defendant No.
In a statement dated March 17, 1956, the plaintiffs clarified that the damages are being claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of all the facts mentioned in the plaint and particularly as a result of the facts that have been mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 19 the plaint, and further that on account of all the facts companyplained of each plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.
In Shiva Sagar Lal v. Mata Din 4 the facts as stated in the head note, in brief, were Plaintiff filed a suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution against five defendants of whom defendant 1 was a minor.
632 of 1962.
1 to 6 were jointly and severally liable and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages from the defendants.
Is the suit number maintainable against other defendants ?
It was further alleged that the four plaintiffs companyld number be legally allowed to totalise the sum of their individual damage, alleged to have been suffered, and thereby procure the trial of the suit in the companyrt of higher jurisdiction, and that the suit had been purposely over valued.
Two of the issues framed by the Civil Judge, may be set out Issue No.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court Dhavan, J. allowing the revision under s. 115, C.P.C., and dismissing the suit brought by the appellants hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs.
Is the companyrt fee paid by the plaintiffs insufficient ?
In the case of Brinsmead v. Harrison 1 , one of the tort leasors was sued for damages for trover of a piano and damages were recovered as against him.
The plaintiffs were given 15 days time to make good the deficiency.
Instead of paying the money the plaintiffs applied under O.VI, r. 17, C.P.C., for amendment of the plaint.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application that there had been a settlement between him and defendant 1 and he had companysequently released him.
N. Kunzru, B.C. Misra, P.K. Chakravarti and Om Prakash, for the appellants.
10,100 as damages but the plaintiffs have claimed only Rs.
P. Goyal and S.P. Singh, for the respondents.
A decree was passed in terms of this companypromise against defendant No.
5 being one of law should be decided by him in the revision.
6, as against rights of the other defendants ?
10,100 and have given up rest of the claim.
325/ in respect of an alleged assault companymitted on him by 1 1909 I.L.R. 31 All.
The allegations in the plaint, in brief, were that the plaintiffs and the defendants were members of an ,association called Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman that the defendants, alongwith some other members of the association, formed a group and each of them companyspired among themselves to injure and harass the plaintiffs and a few others in various ways that at a meeting held on May 5, 1954, in companynection with the election of Trustees, when defendant N.A. Guzder occupied the chair, he gave a ruling that the plaintiffs Kershasp S. Gandhi and B.T.J. Shapoorji, since deceased, were unfit candidates for the office of Trustees and thus prevented them from seeking election, and companytrary to the rules of the Anjuman and without taking votes declared the defendant, F.J. Gandhi, and one A.F. Cama duly elected.
325 of 1957.
173, 175, and accepted Rs.
905/12/ in the companyrt fee which the plaintiffs had to make good.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, 1.
6 have companysidered the subject matter of the suit and am sincerely sorry and apologise to the plaintiffs unconditionally for whatever I have done.
A.I.R. 1934 Nag.
It was further alleged that on July 3, 1954, another meeting of the Anjuman was held when the plaintiffs Khushro S. Gandhi and Framroze S. Gandhi were candidates for election to the office of the trustees, and defendant F.J. Gandhi gave a perverse ruling rejecting the numberinations of the above plaintiffs and after taking votes declared G.T. Shappoorjee as duly elected trustee that by the aforesaid rejections the plaintiffs had suffered an injury for which defendants Nos.
30/ as companyts, and also rejected the defendants application.
What is effect of the companypromise between plaintiffs and defendant No.
The relevant facts for the purpose of ,appreciating the points raised before us are as follows The four plaintiffs, out of which three are appellants before us the fourth having died, brought a suit for damages against the six defendants one defendant had in the meantime died and four are respondents before us .
Issue No.
It appears that the companynsel for both parties companyceded that the Court had power to decide the issue as the entire record was there, although the learned for the plaintiffs felt that the decision should be left to the Trial Court.
The facts in that case in brief were as follows.
The plaintiff sued several defendants jointly to recover damages Rs.
2 1942 I.L.R. 17 Luck.
Against this order the defendants filed a revision.
6 and the suit against him may be disposed of treating the aforesaid apology and its acceptance by the plaintiffs as a settlement of the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.
6 may be disposed of in terms of the above settlement.
6 will bear his own companyts.
6 and defendant No.
Before any written statement was submitted, on February 13, 1955 the sixth defendant S. Rabadi, entered into a companypromise with the plaintiffs.
