# Issue of warrants, summonses, etc. to foreign countries like Afghanistan, etc

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 70/VII-b-32-8-59
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1936-11-21
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 70/VII-b-32-8-59
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/issue-of-warrants-summonses-etc-to-foreign-countries-like-afghanistan-etc-163172
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

160
Issue of warrants, summonses, etc. to foreign countries like Afghanistan, etc.
G.L. No. 95/191-1(3) dated 21st November, 1936 read with
G.O. No. 1951/VII-1892-1936 dated 26th October, 1936 and
C.L. No. 70/VII-b-32-8-59 dated 3rd August, 1959

Reference is invited to the General Letters noted in the Bloc.
C.E. No. 22/VIII-b-16 dated 25 February, 1970

Indian courts can send their summons for service on defendant residing in
Pakistan, to Pakistani court having jurisdiction in the place where the defendants reside.
The summons should be in English.
C.L. No. 80/VII-b-16-2 dated 18th August, 1961

In regard to the colony of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, all
judicial documents and processes should be addressed direct from a High Court in
India to a High Court in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.
(iii) Legalization of documents
By officers appointed in this behalf
C.L. No. 30/X-f-23 dated 7th May, 1955

Reference is invited to the Circular Endorsement noted in the bloc.

For use in Iran
G.L. No. 38/83 dated 17th October, 1930

Reference is invited to the General letter noted in the bloc.

For use in Iraq
G.L. No. 33/34 dated 7th August, 1930
Reference is invited to the General Letter noted in the bloc.
For use in the Union of Africa
G.L. No. 35/83 -5 dated 12th September, 1931, read with
G.O. No. F-310/30-Judicial dated 25th March, 1930
Reference is invited to the General Letter noted in the bloc.
Note: All presiding officers should have copies of these letters prepared from their files
of G.Ls. and C.Ls. and keep the same under a separate cover for facility of
reference. Copies of General and Circular Order issued by the Court in future on
the above subjects should also be placed in the same cover for guidance.
C. L. No.58/2007Admin (D): Dated: 13.12.2007

Rule 66(1) of the General Rules (Civil) provides that every District Judge shall
maintain a list of legal practitioners for each revenue District and outlying Munsifi,
authorized to execute commission and such list shall be prepared by him in consultation
with Judicial Officers of each revenue district and outlying Munsifi as the case may be.
161
Such List may be Sub divided in 5 parts including that of Survey matter. An earlier issued
C.L.no.52 dated 5th May 1972 provides that names of only such persons should be
entered in the list of Survey Commissioners Under Rule 66(1) G.R.( Civil) who possess a
good knowledge of Survey work and can make measurements properly. A need is felt by
the Hon'ble Court that in more complicated cases involving Survey work. The same
should be performed by Qualified Engineers who can be engaged by the party concerned
if an adequate fee is provided for the same.

Therefore, in continuation of the above noted Circular letter, I am directed to
request you to kindly impress upon all judicial officers that in complicated cases, they
may appoint in their discretion qualified engineers for conducting survey work, with cost
(here the fees of the Surveyor) to be borne by the party seeking relief of appointment of
such surveyor .

 I am to add further that kindly bring the contents of this Circular Letter to all the
Judicial Officers working under your administrative control to make strict compliance of
the directions given.
6.
SMALL CAUSE CASES
Procedure on sudden abolition of Small Cause court
G.L. No. 36 dated 30th September, 1931, read with
G.L. No. 9/IV-g-24 dated 9th March, 1949

Small Cause Court cases pending in a court, which has been abolished or has
ceased to exist on the transfer of the Presiding Officer, become triable as regular suits
and not as Small Cause Court cases by the court of inferior jurisdiction in which they
would be filed if freshly instituted and the decrees would be appealable. The District
Judges has no power to transfer such pending Small Cause Court cases under section 24
of the Code of Civil Procedure after the court has ceased to exist or the officer has left
the district so that the decrees may be non-appealable. (Bhagwati Pande vs. Badri
Pandey and another, (1932) ILR. LIV., Allahabad, page 171 (F.B.) Civil revision no.
162 of 1930).

District Judges are advised to pass orders of transfer in regard to such cases
shortly before the court ceases to exist or the officer is transferred. Some cases may be
transferred to Civil Judges and some to Munsifs as the District Judge may think fit. In
that case the cases would continue to remain Small Cause Court cases and can be tried
summarily and the decree would not be appealable.

If a successor to a Civil Judge invested with Small Cause Court power finds a
number of Small Cause Court cases pending on his file, which had not been of his
predecessor, it is irregular for him to try them on the regular side under section 35 of the
Small Cause Court Act when the suits are within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Munsif.
Such cases should go to the Munsif's courts to be tried as regular suits.

When a Court of Small Causes created under section 5 of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act, ceases to exist or an officer invested with such powers is transferred,
cases pending on his file on the Small cause Court side can, by virtue of the provisions
contained in section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and section 24 of the