P L D 1952 Dacca 270 (PLP)
KRISHNA KUMAR DAS‑Plaintiff‑Appellant Versus HARA LAL DE and others‑Defendant‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1952 Dacca 270 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ibrahim, J |
| Parties | KRISHNA KUMAR DAS‑Plaintiff‑Appellant Versus HARA LAL DE and others‑Defendant‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1952 Dacca 270 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1952 Dacca 270 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ibrahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1952 Dacca 270 (PLP) (KRISHNA KUMAR DAS‑Plaintiff‑Appellant Versus HARA LAL DE and others‑Defendant‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Matilal Acharjee for Appellant.
- K. M. Hassan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Contribution‑‑Suit for as between co‑judgment‑debtors towards costs‑Not maintainable against a merely formal defendant in former suit. Where a judgment‑debtor brought a suit for contribution towards costs awarded against all defendants some of whom were only formal defendants not interested in result of suit in which costs were awarded Held, where a party is merely a formal defendant and not personally interested in the result of the suit he cannot be made liable to contribute. Panday Bishambhardeo Narayan Singh v. Hitnarayan Singh I L R 15 Pat. 219 followed.
Judgment & Decree
Where a judgment‑debtor brought a suit for contribution towards costs awarded against all defendants some of whom were only formal defendants not interested in result of suit in which costs were awarded Held, where a party is merely a formal defendant and not personally interested in the result of the suit he cannot be made liable to contribute. Panday Bishambhardeo Narayan Singh v. Hitnarayan Singh I L R 15 Pat. 219 followed. Matilal Acharjee for Appellant. K. M. Hassan for Respondents. IBRAHIM, J.‑
This appeal is from an appellate decree reversing that of the trial Court in a suit for contribution. Rashbehari Das instituted a suit for partition claiming 8 annas share in the property and alleging that the other 8 annas belonged to the present plaintiff and two others, who were defendants Nos. 1 to
3. The three respondents in the present appeal were also made defendants. The suit was decreed ex parte with costs against all the defendants. The decree for costs was put into execution against the present plaintiff whereupon he deposited the entire decretal amount in Court. He has instituted this suit for contribution. His case is that each of the respondents is liable to pay 1/6th of the costs. It is not in every case that a co‑judgment‑debtor is entitled to contribution in respect of joint decree for costs. As held in the case of Panday Bisambhardeo Narayan Singh v. Hitnarayan Singh I L R 15 Pat. 219, with which I agree, where a party is merely a formal defendant and not personally interested in the result of the suit he cannot be made liable to contribute. In the present case the respondents were not interested in the result of the suit. The plaintiff has not made any attempt to show why they were made parties and whether they appeared and made any attempt to resist the claim. The plaintiff and the other two defendants were co‑sharers of Rashbehari and the dispute was between them. In these circumstances the lower appellate Court rightly held that though the decree for costs was jointly passed against all the defendants the plaintiff is not entitled in equity to get contribution from the respondents. This appeal was filed with an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to treat it as a case of revision in case it was decided that the suit was cognizable by Small Causes Court. The, claim in this suit was for contribution to the extent of Rs.
51. It in obviously cognizable by the Small Causes Court and this second appeal is incompetent, and is dismissed. The revision petition is rejected for the reasons already given above. On considering the circumstances I make no order as to costs. A.H. Appeal dismissed.