Useful Free Reference Material on Trial Court Procedure in Maharashtra

 FOR CIVIL COURTS -

* Civil Manual (issued by Bombay High Court for Trial Court Procedure)
https://court.mah.nic.in/courtweb/index_eng.php#
(click on the information centre).

* Criminal Manual (issued by Bombay High Court for Trial Court Procedure)
https://court.mah.nic.in/courtweb/static_pages/page5b.htm
(click on the information centre)

Print Page

Civil Manual Bombay high Rules U/S 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Rules framed by the High Court under sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage

Act 1955 (XXV of 1955) as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment)

Act, 1976 (India Act No. 68 of 1976), for carrying out the purpose

of the Act.

330. (1) Short title and Commencement : (i) These Rules may be called the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1955.

(ii) These Rules shall come into force on 1st December 1955.

Print Page

Civil Manual Bombay high Rules U/S 62 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, relating to the Procedure of District Courts, and of the High Court in Cases for Confirmation of the District Court's Decree.

CHAPTER XVII

RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS UNDER SPECIAL ACTS

Short Title and Commencement

323. (1) These Rules may be called the Divorce (District Court) Rules, 1929.

(2) They shall come into force on the 30th day of June 1929.

Petition

(3) All petitions under sections 10, 18, 23, 27, 32 or 34 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called “the Act”) shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the certificate of the marriage, if such a certificate is available to the petitioner.

Print Page

Whether departmental enquiry can be initiated against court staff for not calling record?

 Even if it is assumed that he did not Call R&P, still it is not material defect or dereliction of duty which can attract a departmental enquiry. The resultant destruction of 'C' file is the main cause and the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider that, mere act of not calling the R&P cannot be the cause for destruction of 'C' file. It is rightly argued that, the record keeper and the staff from the Record Office did not follow the provisions of law as per 544 (1) (2) of Civil Manual before destruction of 'C' file. They were really guilty for destruction of 'C' file before time. They have been spared and only because the R&P was not called, the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry. As per para 544(2), the period of 12 years for destruction of 'C' file is to be calculated from the date of final decree or order. Even if any application for setting aside ex-parte decree or restoration of suit is pending, the time has to be calculated from the final order in such application.

11. In the present case, the appeal was decided on 21.04.1995 and thereafter application for restoration of appeal was also filed. The same was decided on 01.07.1998 and the appeal was restored, still the record was destroyed on 07.10.1998. It was clearly contrary to the provisions of Para 544 of Civil Manual. It was duty of the Record Keeper to verify whether any appeal or any proceeding is pending or not in respect of the suit, which was not complied.

12. The observations of the District Judge that though Record Keeper should have maintained file for 12 years from the date of the order of the appellate court but the said fact alone would not exonerate the present delinquents is not the correct approach. If the 'C' file would not have been destroyed, there was no occasion for holding departmental enquiry. Mere failure or delay to comply the order of calling R&P cannot be a subject matter of departmental enquiry.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5094 of 2002

Decided On: 30.01.2019

 Hanumant  Vs.  The Disciplinary Authority and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Gangapurwala and A.M. Dhavale, JJ.

Citation: 2019(3) MHLJ 320

A.M. Dhavale, J.

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while permitting Advocate to withdraw his vakalatnama

 Even if it is held that the said letter/notice (Exhibit-77) was duly served on the appellant, the question is whether that was enough to show compliance with Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual. In this regard a perusal of the aforesaid provision becomes relevant :-

"Section 660(4)- When an Advocate who has filed a Vakalatnama for a party wishes to withdraw his appearance, he shall serve a written notice of his intention to do so on his client at least seven days in advance of the case coming up for hearing before the Court. Leave of the Court to withdraw appearance may also be applied for if the client has instructed the Advocate to that effect. The Advocate shall file a note in writing requesting the Court for permission to withdraw appearance and shall also file along with the Note the letter or the client instructing him to withdraw his appearance or a copy of the intimation given to the client as above together with its written acknowledgment by the client. The Court, if it is satisfied that no inconvenience is likely to be caused to the Court or the client, may permit the Advocate to withdraw his appearance and while permitting the Advocate to do so may also impose such terms and conditions as it may deem proper either in public interest or in the interest of the parties."

13. The aforesaid provision shows that when an Advocate wishes to withdraw his appearance, he is required to send a written notice of his intention to do so to his client at least 7 days in advance of the case coming up for hearing before the Court. Thereafter, his Advocate is required to file a note in writing requesting the Court for permission to withdraw appearance. He is also required to file along with the note the letter that he has sent to his client together with its written acknowledgment. Upon such documents being filed by the appellant intending to withdraw his appearance, the Court has to satisfy itself that no inconvenience is likely to be caused to the Court or the client and thereafter the Court may permit the Advocate to withdraw his appearance. The Court can also impose such terms and conditions as it may deem proper either in public interest or in the interest of the parties while permitting the Advocate to withdraw his appearance. The facts of the present case show that even if the findings of fact rendered by the appellate Court are accepted, what is proved on record is that the Advocate of the appellant did issue letter/notice (Exhibit-77) to him and that it was served upon the appellant which was proved by the acknowledgment at Exhibit-78. The Advocate for the appellant filed no instructions pursis and along with the same he placed on record letter/notice at Exhibit-77 and the acknowledgment at Exhibit-78. Thus, up to this stage there has been compliance with Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual in the present case. But, it appears that, thereafter, the trial Court has simply taken note of the aforesaid pursis and documents filed by the Advocate for the appellant. There is no order or direction passed by the trial Court regarding its satisfaction that no inconvenience is likely to be caused to the Court or to the appellant while permitting the said Advocate to withdraw his appearance. In fact, there is no order permitting the Advocate in the present case to withdraw his appearance on behalf of the appellant and obviously there are no terms and conditions recorded for grant of such permission to withdraw in the present case. In the absence of any such order passed by the trial Court, there is non compliance of the last and the most crucial limb of Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual in the present case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 175 of 2016

Decided On: 13.04.2018

Rameshkumar Vyankatswami Poona   Vs. Swami Vivekanand Cooperative Housing Society and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 227

Print Page

Whether civil court can entertain application U/S 340 of CRPC?

Bombay HC-NAGPUR BENCH- Even though any Civil Suit is pending Court cannot deny case u/s 340 CrPC. Perjury Application to be register as Miscellaneous Judicial Case as per Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 in Civil case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1115/07.

 Kenneth Desa s/o Late John Desa,
v
Gopal s/o Leeladhar Narang,

Citation;2007 ALL M R(CRI)2281

CORAM:

C.L.PANGARKAR,J.
11th July, 2007.

Print Page