Whether a law firm or a good lawyer, the best practice is they should not file the case in a hurry when a complainant comes to him with a case. Definitely, some petitioners make haste when they come to a lawyer, so they do not submit complete documents. Or sometimes, the lawyers themselves may be in a hurry when they file a claim without carefully considering the details of the case. Later, due to a small mistake, the claim is dismissed. It is very important for all lawyers and the parties of the case to read this article so that they can avoid such mistakes.
What was the background of the case “Radakishen Vs. Wali Mohammed “
The case was filed by Radakishen against Wali Mohammad. Radha Kishan submitted a power of attorney and claimed that she is entitled to file a plaint on behalf of the plaintiff. But the power of attorney that she submitted before the court only authorized her to deal with the matters arising out of the Akola transactions, without any authority to handle court litigations. Therefore, on this basis, the court dismissed the case in favor of the defendant, namely Wali Muhammad.
What are the details of the case “Radakishen Vs. Wali Mohammed”
The case title is Radakishen Vs. Wali Mohammed.
The plaint was appealed IN THE HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD INDIA. The appeal no is “No. 61/1”. It was firstly appealed during 1953-54, and it was decided on the 8th of March 1956. The case continued for about three years.
The names of judges who ruled the case “Radakishen Vs. Wali Mohammed”
The Three Hon’ble judges, Rai Manohar Prashad, Taqi Bilgrami, and JJ, ruled in the case.
What was the reason for rejecting the plaint “Radakishen Vs. Wali Mohammed”
In this case, the plaint was not signed by the authorized person, and the defect was not cured within the time provided, so the plaint was rejected.
The judgment in the case “Radakishen Vs. Wali Mohammed”
Following is the judgment in Radakishen Vs. Wali Mohammed case.
“(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.3 R.2— Power of attorney. Where the general power of attorney given to a person said to be the muktar of the plaintiff authorised him only to take action in matters arising out of Akola transactions, the general power of attorney does not give any power or authority to him to sign the plaint in a suit or action not relating to Akola transactions.(Para 3) (B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.11— Scope. The instances given in O. 7, R. 11 cannot be regarded as exhaustive of all the cases in which a court can reject a plaint or as limiting the inherent powers of the court in respect thereof.(Para 3) (C) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.11, O.17 R.3, O.6 R.14— Person signing the plaint not authorised – Effect – Proper procedure. If the court comes to the conclusion that the person signing the plaint was not authorised, it should call upon the plaintiff to cure the defect and on his failure to do so, proceed to decide the question forthwith and to dismiss it under O. 17 R. 3 if the case falls within the said provision or to reject the plaint under O. 7 R. 11 or under its inherent powers. Order 6 R. 14 whic….”
Conclusion
Now see how much time the plaintiff wasted in this case? The case proceeded for about three years. And the result is a waste of time and money.
We get the result from this case.
We should thoroughly scrutinize the claim while filing it.
If there is any deficiency in the case, find a solution, if possible.
We should resolve the claim as soon as it is known instead of wasting the time of the parties and the court.
After completing all the paperwork and conditions, the claim should be filed again.
Your success. Our commitment.
Thanks for reading.