Skip to main content

Order 27 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - SUITS BY OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC OFFICERS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY

 Order 27 CPC Description



1. Suits by or against Government


In any suit by or against the Government the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may, by general or special Order, appoint in this behalf, and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case.


STATE AMENDMENTS


Uttar Pradesh.-In the marginal heading of the Order, after the words "official capacity", insert the words "or Statutory Authorities, etc." [U.P. Act 57 of 1976].


2. Persons authorised to act for Government


Persons being ex officio or otherwise authorised to act for the Government in respect of any judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be the recognised agents by whom appearances, act and applications under this Code may be made or done on behalf of the Government.


3. Plaints in suits by or against Government


In suits by or 1[against the Government] instead of inserting in the plaint the name and description and place of residence of the plaintiff or defendant, it shall be sufficient to insert 1[the appropriate name as provided in section 79.2[* * *]]


1. Subs. A.O. 1937, for "against the Secretary of State for India in Council".


2. Certain words omitted by the A.O. 1948.


1[4. Agent for Government to receive process


The Government pleader in any Court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes against the Government issued by such Court.]


1. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for rule 4.


5. Fixing of day for appearance on behalf of Government


The Court, in fixing the day for the Government to answer to the plaint, shall allow a reasonable time for the necessary communication with the Government through the proper channel, and for the issue of instructions to the Government pleader to appear and answer on behalf of the Government and may extend the time at its discretion [but the time so extended shall not exceed two months in the aggregate.]


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Andhra Pradesh.-Same as in Madras.


Karnataka.-In Order XXVII, in rule 5, after the words "instructions to the Government pleader", insert the words "or recognised agents of the Government".


Kerala.-Same as in Madras.


Madras.-In Order XXVII, in rule 5, for the words "a reasonable time", substitute the words "not less than three months' time from the date of summons".


1[5A. Government to be joined as a party in a suit against a public officer


Where a suit is instituted against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, the Government shall be joined as a party to the suit.


1. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 76 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


5B. Duty of Court in suits against the Government or a public officer to assist in arriving at a settlement


(1) In every suit or proceeding to which the Government, or a public officer acting in his official capacity, is a party, it shall be the duty of the Court to make, in the first instance, every endeavour, where it is possible to do so consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit.


(2) If, in any such suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Court may adjourn the proceeding for such period as it thinks fit, to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement.


(3) The power conferred under sub-rule (2) is in addition to any other power of the Court to adjourn proceedings.]


6. Attendance of person able to answer questions relating to suit against Government


The Court may also in any case in which the Government pleader is not accompanied by any person on the part of the Government who may be able to answer any material questions relating to the suit, direct the attendance of such a person.


7. Extension of time to enable public officer to make reference to Government


(1) Where the defendant is a public officer and, on receiving the summons, considers it proper to make a reference to the Government before answering the plaint, he may apply to the Court to grant such extension of the time fixed in the summons as may necessary to enable him to make such reference and to receive Orders thereon through the proper channel.


(2) Upon such application the Court shall extend the time for so long as appears to it to be necessary.


8. Procedure in suits against public officer


(1) Where the Government undertakes the defence of a suit against a public officer, the Government pleader, upon being furnished with authority to appear and answer the plaint, shall apply to the Court, and upon such application the Court shall cause a note of his authority to be entered in the register of civil suits.


(2) Where no application under sub-rule (1) is made by the Government pleader on or before the day fixed in the notice for the defendant to appear and answer, the case shall proceed as in a suit between private parties:


Provided that the defendant shall not be liable to arrest, nor his property to attachment, otherwise than in execution of a decree.


8A. No security to be required from Government or a public officer in certain cases


No such security as is mentioned in rules 5 and 6 of Order XLI shall be required from the Government or, where the Government has undertaken the defence of the suit, from any public officer sued in respect of an act alleged to be done by him in his official capacity.


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Andhra Pradesh.-Same as in Madras.


Madras.-In Order XXVII, re-number rule 8A as rule 9.


8B. Definitions of "Government" and "Government pleader"


In this Order unless otherwise expressly, provided "Government" and "Government pleader" mean respectively-


(a) in relation to any suit by or against the Central Government, or against a public officer in the service of that Government, the Central Government and such pleader as that Government may appoint whether generally or specially for the purposes of this Order;


1[* * *]


(c) in relation to any suit by or against a State Government or against a public officer in the service of a State, the State Government and the Government pleader as defined in clause (7) of section 2, or such other pleader as the State Government may appoint, whether generally or specially, for the purposes of this Order.


1. Clause (b) omitted by the A.O. 1948.


STATE AMENDMENT


Uttar Pradesh.-In Order XXVII, after rule 9, insert the following rule, namely:-


"10- Suits by or-against statutory authority.-(1) Any authority or corporation, consituted by or under any law, may, from time to time, appoint a Standing Counsel, to be called Corporation pleader of that authority in any district and give information of such appointment to the District Judge *[and to Registrar of the High Court at Allahabad or a Lucknow Bench, as the case may be].


(2) The Corporation pleader so appointed shall be the agent in that district of the appointing authority or Corporation for purposes of receiving processes against it, but shall not act or plead without filing a vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance."


[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, sec. 11 (w.e.f. 1-1-1977) and * Notification dated 10th February, 1981 (w.e.f. 3-10-1981).]


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Allahabad.-In Order XXVII, after rule 8B, insert the following rule, namely:-


"9. In every case in which the District Government Counsel appears for the Government as a party on its own account, or for the Government as undertaking under the provisions of rule 8(1), the defence of a suit against an officer of the Government, he shall, in lieu of a vakalatnama, file a memorandum on unstamped paper signed by him and stating on whose behalf he appears. Such memorandum shall be, as nearly as may be, in the terms of the following form:-


TITLE OF THE SUIT, ETC.


1. AB. District Government Counsel appears on behalf of the Government of India (or the Government of Uttar Pradesh, or as the case may be) respondent (or etc.). in the suit:-


or, on behalf of the Government [which under Order 27, rule 8(1) of Act No. V of 1908, has undertaken the defence of the suit], respondent (or, etc.), in the suit."


{Vide Notification No. 1953/35 (a), dated 22nd May, 1915.]


Andhra Pradesh.-Same as in Madras.


Madras.-In Order XXVII, renumber rules 8A and 8B as rules 9 and 10 respectively, (w.e.f. 2-3-1942)


Orissa.-In Order XXVI, insert the following rule, namely:-


"9. In every case in which the Government pleader appears for the Government as a party on it own accounts or for the Government as undertaking under the provision of rule 8(1), the defence of a suit against an officer of a Government, he shall in lieu of a vakalatnama, file a memorandum of unstamped paper signed by him and stating on whose behalf he appears." (w.e.f. 14-10-1960)


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more