 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 140 4.9. Bombay and Madras amendments.- It would appear that presumably because of the hardship felt by reason of the mandatory provision in Order V, rule 19A, the Bombay and Madras High Courts have made certain amendments as under1:- Bombay-"In Order V, in sub-rule (1) of rule 19A:- (i) for the word "shall" the word "may" be substituted; (ii) the proviso shall be deleted (w.e.f. 1-10-1983)." Madras-"In rule 19A, as introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976, the word "shall" in sub-rule (2) occurring between the words "the Court issuing the summons" and "declare that the summons had been..." be substituted by the word "may" and the proviso to sub-rule (2) shall stand repealed, (Vide R.O.C. No. 6454/77 (2-F) S.R.C. (43/80), dated 5-12-1980)." 1. S.K. Mukherjee Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. I, (1987), p. 990.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back