# The Government have intimated with concern that the provisions as contained in

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 37/VIIf-98
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 2001-07-12
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 37/VIIf-98
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-government-have-intimated-with-concern-that-the-provisions-as-contained-in-163847
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

457
C.L. No. 37/VIIf-98 Dated: 19th October, 2001
The Government have intimated with concern that the provisions as contained in
Section 35, 38(8), 49 and 47A of Indian stamp Act, 1899 are not being complied with
strictly by the concerned Public Officers causing huge loss to the Government revenue.

I am, therefore, desired to send herewith a copy of Government letter no. Ka/Ni5-4306/11-2001-500(35)/98 dated July 12, 2001 along with its enclosures and to request
you to kindly ensure compliance of the provisions as contained in Section 35,38(8), 40
and 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, strictly and contents of the Government letter,
aforesaid, be brought to the notice of the concerned Judicial Officers of your Judgeship.
15.
HEARING OF CASES
(i)
de die in diem
G.L.No.878-67/9 dated 3rd April, 1917
The practice of hearing one or two witnesses a day in long cases instead of
hearing the case de die in diem till finished cannot be too strongly deprecated and notice
will be taken of Civil Judges and Munsifs who adhere to this antiquated and most
objectionable practice.

The following instructions should be borne in mind:
Where a case promises to be a long one, the cause list for a day or two should be cleared
and the time devoted entirely to the hearing of the case de die in diem. In the case of Civil
Judges there is no objection to a certain number of appeals being added so as to allow for
a break down, as appeals can be heard on an adjourned date without inconvenience of a
serious nature to the parties concerned.

Similarly, if on a date fixed in accordance with this letter a breakdown for any
reason occurs, a munsif can always inspect his office and take up miscellaneous work,
which does not require the fixing of an actual date.
C.L.No. 9/Admn.(B) dated 30th November, 1971

The habit of taking up more than one case at a time by the Magistrates - one by
the Magistrate himself and the other either by the reader or ahalmad or by both - is
highly improper and the Court view such lapses with great concern. Those found acting
in such improper manner shall be severely dealt with. The District Judges should make
occasional surprise visits and any irregularity brought to their notice should be promptly
dealt with.
(ii)
Verification of security bonds
G.L.No. 2/45-6(4) dated 11th May, 1928

Whenever a bond comes before a court for verification the presiding officer
should direct his attention to the important point of ascertaining whether the executants of
the bond (in the case of his being a Hindu) is a member of a joint Hindu family. If the
answer is in the affirmative, the next point to ascertain is whether the property
hypothecated is joint family property, in which case it would be inadequate by way of
security, as raising the question of legal necessity. Only after informing himself on these
458
points the presiding officer should report to the High Court as to sufficiency or otherwise
of the security.
G.L. No.3/45-3 dated 11th January, 1929

District Judges should give special directions to all courts in their jurisdiction to
treat all applications for verification of security bonds as urgent.
C.L. No.1416/67-5 dated 10th April, 1913

In every case, in which a security bond is sent down for verification by the alleged
executants and for a report as to the sufficiency of the security offered, notice should
invariably be sent to the other side to appear and take any objection, if they so desire. The
order sheet of the case should have a note that this has been done and also whether any
one appeared. If any objection is taken, note of this and of the court's decision on the
objection should appear on the order sheet.
(iii)
Revenue references
C.L.No.3 dated 10th January, 1957

The following procedure should be followed by a court, whether civil or revenue,
when referring an issue to another court or when returning an issue with its own finding
to another court:
(1)
A date should be fixed by the court referring an issue or returning an issue with
its finding for appearance of the parties in the other court, the fact should be
noted in the order sheet and signatures of the parties present should be taken on
the order sheet in token of their being informed of it.
(2)
The date should be selected with regard to the time the record is likely to take to
reach the other court. If the record is to be sent to the other court through the
District Judge stationed at another place, more time should be allowed than
otherwise.
(3)
If the proceedings in the court referring an issue, or deciding an issue, have been
ex-parte against any defendant, the fact should be noted in the order sheet of the
date on which the issue is referred or is returned with the finding, so that the
other court may know that the proceedings are ex-parte against the defendant
and may not spend time in serving a notice upon him for appearance before it.
(4)
The court to which an issue is referred, or to which an issue is returned with the
finding, must call out the case on the date fixed by the other court, take
attendance of the parties and fix another date for the hearing if it has no time to
hear it on that date.
(iv)
Civil cases against state
C.E. No.35 dated 3rd April, 1969

As envisaged under G.O. no. B-382/VH-b-1005-68, dated February, 28,1969
copies of notices, narrative, District Government Counsel's opinion, certificates of
means, plaints or draft pleadings, i.e., draft, written statements and connected papers
should be sent to Government in duplicate in each case.