# these in others of a similar nature, should be severely dealt with

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 20
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1968-06-17
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 20
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/these-in-others-of-a-similar-nature-should-be-severely-dealt-with-163220
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

178
the memorandum of costs in certain decrees and, without valid reasons, not including
these in others of a similar nature, should be severely dealt with.
(vii)
Report under section 82, C.P.C.
C.L. No. 20 dated 4th March, 1959
Reports under section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding nonsatisfaction of decrees should invariable be sent to Government in duplicate.
C.L. No. 15/VII d-140 dated 2nd February, 1961

Non-compliance of the directions in the preceding paragraph is a serious matter
and Munsarims of the courts concerned will be held personally responsible for any
failure.
C.L. No. 99/VII-b-11 dated 3rd November, 1961

In order to avoid delay and facilitate location of the administrative department
concerned the designation of the Head of Department should be mentioned in the plaint at
the place where the names of the plaintiff and defendant are given in the beginning as
illustrated below: the ―State of Uttar Pradesh through the .......‖ (Designation of the
Head of the Department) plaintiff.
(viii) Execution in Jammu and Kashmir
C.L. No. 51/VIIIb-16-4/55 dated 30th August, 1955

The decrees passed by a civil court in India may be executed through a court
situate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as if the decree had been passed by such a
court in that State.
(ix)
Execution in foreign countries
C.E. No. 73/VIII-b-245 dated 11th August, 1969
Under notification, dated June 17, 1968, Republic of Singapore has been declared
a reciprocating territory for the purpose of section 44 A C.P.C. and the High Court of the
Republic of Singapore to be a superior Court with reference to that territory.
C.E. No. 81 dated 22nd August, 1969

From 1st September, 1968 ̳Trinidad' and Tobago are declared to be reciprocating
territories for the purpose of section 44- A C.P.C. and the following courts will be
superior courts of that territory:
(a)
High Courts;
(b)
Courts of Appeal;
(c)
Industrial Court; and
(d)
Income Tax Appeal Board
12.
ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENACE ORDERS
C.L. No. 1 dated 11th January, 1965
The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1921 extends to the
countries of Basutoland, Bechunaland and Cyprus under the Maintenance Orders
179
(Facilities for Enforcement) Order, 1963 of the Government of Isle as amended by the
Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Amendment (No. 2) Order, 1964.
13.
COSTS
C.L. No. 64/IVh-36 dated 24th March, 1977
The costs awarded by the courts from time to time during the pendency of the
case shall henceforth be taxed in the decree and not deposited in cash in the court.
C.L. No. 105/IVh-36 dated 9th June, 1977
In view of the new provisions of sub-section (2) of section 35 B, C.P.C. the
aforesaid instruction stands withdrawn. The new provisions regarding drawing up an
order in respect of unpaid costs as made in sub-section (2) of section 35B, C.P.C. shall
henceforth be followed by all courts concerned.
C.L. No. 44/VIIIb-177/Admn.(F) dated 9th July, 1981
All the Presiding Officers should ensure that the costs awarded by the courts in cases
in favour of the Government are shown in the decree in question invariably and without
fail so that the Government may not be put to any loss on this count.
Non-maintainability of Revision under S. 115 of the CPC against the issuance of
notice on an application moved under O. XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as laid down in WPNo. 802 (M/S) of 2007 - Lalit Mohan Srivastava Vs.
District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and Others
C. L. No. 18/2007 Dated: 19.5.2007
The Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 802 (M/S) of 2007- Lalit Mohan
Srivastava Vs. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and others delving deep into the plethora
of rulings, to set at rest the confusion, if any, in respect of no-maintainability of Civil
Revision against issuance of notice on an application moved under order XXXIX Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been pleased to observe on 23.2.2007 as under:
―.....A plain reading of all the three judgments namely; Shiv Shakti (Supra),
Surya Dev Rai (supra) and Gayatri Devi show that revision under section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be maintainable at the stage of interlocutory
proceeding. A close reading of provision contained in Maharashtra as well as in
the State of U.P. at the face of record shows that order passed by the trial court
while issuing a notice on an application under 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure shall be interlocutory order and it cannot be termed as case
decided. Needless to say that provision under Section 115 Code of civil Procedure
is a procedural Law and ipso facto the provision itself cannot be termed to be
declaration that revision shall be maintainable even if case is not decided...‖

Therefore, while enclosing herewith a copy of the judgment and order mentioned
above, I am directed to request you to kindly bring to the notice of all the Judicial Officer
within your administrative control the contents of the above judgment for strict
compliance.