# will have to consider whether the loss should not be partly made good by the District

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 62/IVh-36
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1932-05-05
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 62/IVh-36
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/will-have-to-consider-whether-the-loss-should-not-be-partly-made-good-by-the-162677
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

4
District Judges are also under a personal obligation to see that the rule is fully
observed. Should a case of loss owing to a breach of this rule occur in future the Court
will have to consider whether the loss should not be partly made good by the District
Judge (whether in active service or in retirement) who may be found to have condoned a
breach of that rule or to have neglected to see that the rule was being properly observed.

District Judges or officer-in-charge of the Nazarat should pay unexpected visits to
the Nazarat and satisfy themselves that rule 351 of Chapter XII is being observed and
mention this fact in their annual civil report.
G.L. No. 22/94-1(3) dated 5th May, 1932
The Nazir must deposit all jewels and other valuables entrusted to him in his
official capacity in the treasury.

Any valuable deposited with the Nazir not in his official capacity, are deposited
with at the depositor's risk.
2.
PAYMENTS BY COURT
(i)
Repayment orders
(a)
Repayment applications
 C.L. No. 62/IVh-36 dated 22nd March, 1977
Henceforth, the Munsarim himself should obtain the report of the record room and Nazir
on the repayment applications and after giving his own report on the applications,
prepare the voucher and hand it over to the applicant.
G.L. No. 20/VIII-b-102 dated 20th October, 1951
The following directions are issued with regard to applications for refund of civil
court deposits:-
(1)
All repayment orders must be prepared within a week of the date of
presentation of the application. If the preparation of any repayment order
is delayed beyond a week, a report explaining the cause of delay should be
submitted to the district judge for orders.
(2)
Where an application for repayment is defective, it should not be thrown
out unless the error is a material one. Minor errors should be pointed out
to the applicant and allowed to be corrected by him and the application
should normally not be rejected on account of minor mistakes.
(3)
Where the record-room from where a report is required before repayment
can be made is situated at another station, the limit of one week
mentioned above may be extended by another week.
(4)
 Where the decree-holder applies for the withdrawal of a deposit
immediately after it has been made, the time for the preparation of the
repayment order may be reckoned not from the date of application but
from the date on which the General Number of the deposit is received
from the District Judge's Office or the date on which intimation is
received from the treasury of such deposit, whichever is later. The District
5
Judge should arrange so that the dispatch of General Number in the case
of such deposit to the court concerned is not delayed.
The Presiding Officers should keep an adequate control over their staff so as to
ensure the early issue of repayment orders. Habitual delay in the issue of repayment
orders by the staff may be regarded as indicating a lack of administrative capacity in the
judicial officer concerned.
(b)
Register of applications for repayments
G.L. No. 16-44-7(1) dated 17th March, 1937
The register introduced under the general letter noted in the bloc and referred to
in rule 296, Chapter XI of General Rules (Civil), 1957, Volume I shall be maintained by
the Munsarim or clerk of the court in manuscript.
(c)
Office Report
G.L. No. 19/67 dated 1st May, 1929
The report of the clerk should not only be that money is due to the applicant and
in deposit, but further that the address given by the applicant to which he desires the
money to be sent is the registered address on the file.
(d)
Identification of payee
G.L. No. 3440 dated 30th October, 1907
The Munsarim or the court will, especially when the sum to be paid is of considerable
amount, consult the record, send for the pleader who represented the applicant in the
original litigation and ask him whether or not he can identify the applicant as his former
client. If he says he cannot, the payment order should not be made over until the
applicant has been identified to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.
(e)
Repayment orders not to be drawn in the name of court officials
G.L. No. 48/94-1(72) dated 5th November, 1938
When the charges of publication of notices, etc. in newspapers are remitted to the
treasury, the bills of publication charges should not be paid by issuing repayment orders
in the name of the Nazir who may cash the vouchers from the treasury and send the
money by money order to the managers of the newspapers concerned as it is contrary to
the provisions of paragraph 109 (XI) (b) of the Treasury Manual under which payment of
amounts from the treasury to officials for or on behalf of the original payees are strictly
forbidden.
(f)
Date of issue
G.L. No. 13/165-5(1) dated 23rd June, 1945
The Presiding Officers of courts when passing a repayment order should
invariably give the date below their signature to be treated as the date of issue for all
purposes.
(g)
Refund of lapse deposits
C.L. No. 6/xb-17 dated 10th February, 1981