- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Padmabati Dasi v. Rasik Lal Dhar
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion addresses an application concerning the extension of time for filing a paper-book in an appeal and related procedural matters. The appellants had been granted three weeks by Harington J. to file their paper-book, which expired on 6th December 1909. They applied to the Court of Appeal for further extension, which was refused on 7th December 1909 due to unreasonable delay, including delays in furnishing the necessary stamp. Subsequently, the respondent gave notice to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, while the appellants sought a rehearing of their application for extension of time, alleging that the delay had been explained to Harington J. earlier. The rehearing was conducted on 21st December 1909.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to rehear an application for extension of time before the order is formally drawn up.
- Whether the appellants should be granted further time to file their paper-book despite the delay.
- Whether an order for security for costs should be granted in the circumstances of this appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Court has power to rehear the application for extension of time before the order is drawn up.
- There was no specific rule in their jurisdiction prohibiting a rehearing prior to the order being drawn up.
- The delay in obtaining necessary stamps had been previously explained to and accepted by Harington J. on 15th November, which was not made known to the Court of Appeal on 6th December.
Respondent's Arguments
- The application for rehearing is effectively an appeal against the Court of Appeal's order dated 7th December 1909.
- The delay in furnishing the necessary stamp was unnecessary and not sufficiently accounted for.
- Opposed further extension of time on these grounds.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized the strict requirements of Order XIX, rule 3, regarding affidavits, stating that affidavits must clearly distinguish facts known personally by the deponent from statements based on belief, with grounds for belief stated in sufficient detail. The Court found that the appellants' affidavits failed to comply with these requirements, as they only contained general averments without specifying the basis of belief.
Regarding the extension of time, the Court acknowledged the delay exceeded what could be reasonably explained, referencing two distinct periods of delay, including the delay in furnishing the necessary stamp. On these grounds and considering all circumstances, the Court initially refused the extension.
However, upon rehearing the application before the order was drawn up, the Court accepted that it had jurisdiction to do so and allowed the appellants three weeks' further time from the date of the order. The Court imposed a condition requiring the appellants to provide security for the costs of the appeal amounting to Rs. 2,500 within one week after the Christmas vacation.
Costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the appeal, and the applicant was directed to pay the costs of the initial application for security due to non-compliance with affidavit requirements.
Holding and Implications
Application allowed.
The Court granted the appellants an additional three weeks to file their paper-book, conditional on providing security for costs to the satisfaction of the Registrar within a specified time. The Court underscored the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules concerning affidavits and reiterated its authority to rehear applications prior to formalization of orders. The decision directly affects the parties by permitting further time under conditions but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond procedural clarifications.
Jenkins, C.J and Woodroffe, J.:— We think in this case no sufficient ground is shown for an order for security. All we have on which to act is an allegation of the appellants' lack of means followed by a general averment that the statements are to the best of the deponent's knowledge, information and belief; but what his information and belief are, or on what his belief is grounded, is in no way indicated. Order XIX, rule 3, however, declares that “affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted, provided that the grounds thereof are stated.” That proviso is essential, but no attempt has been made to comply with its terms.
We desire to impress on those who propose to rely on affidavits that, in future, the provisions of Order XIX, rule 3, must be strictly observed, and every affidavit should clearly express how much is a statement of the deponent's knowledge and how much is a statement of his belief, and the grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient particularity to enable the Court to judge whether it would be safe to act on the deponent's belief.
The applicant must pay the costs of this application.
The three weeks' time allowed by Harington J. having expired on the 6th December 1909, the appellants applied to the Court of Appeal for further time to file their paper-book. It was opposed by the respondent, on the ground, inter alia, that there had been unnecessary delay in furnishing the necessary stamp. By an order dated the 7th December the Court refused the application in the following terms:—
Jenkins, C.J and Woodroffe, J.:— In our opinion there has been a delay in excess of what can be reasonably accounted for, and in respect of two periods of time. Having regard to that and to all the circumstances, we are not prepared to extend the time further. We refuse the application for extension of time with costs.
Thereupon, the respondent gave the appellants notice of an application for the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellants, contra, gave the respondent notice of an application for the rehearing of their application for further extension of time. The order of the 7th December 1909 had not been drawn up. It was alleged by the appellants in their petition that the reason for the delay in obtaining the necessary stamps, which had not been explained to the Court of Appeal on the 6th December, had in fact been laid before Harington J. on the 15th November, and been accepted by him.
The appellants' application was heard on the 21st December 1909.
Mr. Hill (with him Mr. H.D Bose), for the appellants. The order of the 7th December has not been drawn up. The Court has power to rehear the application for extension of time. In this country there is no specific rule giving the Court jurisdiction to rehear a matter before the order is drawn up.
Mr. C.C Ghose, for the respondent. This is, in effect, an appeal from your Lordships' order of the 7th December 1909.
[Jenkins, C.J:— I think we have the power and we will hear the application on its merits.]
After hearing the application their Lordships made the following order:—
Jenkins, C.J and Woodroffe, J.:— We give you three weeks' time from to-day. You are to give security for the costs of the appeal to the extent of Rs. 2,500 to the satisfaction of the Registrar within one week from the re-opening of the Court after the Christmas vacation. Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
Attorneys for the appellants: O.C Ganguly & Co.
Attorney for the respondent: S.S Banerji.
J.C
Application allowed.
Alert