Palani Kumarasamia Pillai and Another vs Udayarnadan and Others

In Second Appeal No. 1431 of 1905.-It is not necessary for us to decide whether, in a case where the Court finds u/s 491 of the CPC that an

attachment u/s 483 was applied for on insufficient grounds, the party against whom the order for attachment was made in a suit for compensation

must prove that the defendant acted maliciously. In the present case the lower appellate Court finds on the facts that the first defendant acted

maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.

The lower appellate Court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 256 by way of special damages and a further sum of Rs. 250 for general damages for loss

of credit and reputation. Sir V. Bhashyam Ayyangar has contended that general damages are not recoverable. He conceded that ho had not been

able to find any authority in support of this contention. It seems to us that an order u/s 483, Civil Procedure Code, where the application has been

made on insufficient grounds, must necessarily cause damage to the credit and reputation of the party against whom the order is made, and we

think general damages are recoverable. The principle of the decision in Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Company v. Eyre (1883) 11 Q.B.D.

is, in our opinion, applicable to a case of this sort.

The second appeal is dismissed with costs.

On behalf of the first respondent a memorandum of objections was filed in this Court and a copy of the memorandum served upon the

appellants u/s 561 of the Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Sundara Aiyar, who appeared for the respondent, did not move his memorandum of

objections and he contended that, in these circumstances, the Court had no jurisdiction to make any order with regard to it. His contention was

that there was nothing before the Court with which it could deal judicially. A party may file his memorandum of objections without stamping it as it

is not one of the documents to which Section 6 of the Court Fees Act applies, u/s 16 of the Act the Court cannot hear the objection until the

proper stamp fee has been paid by the respondent. In the present case the memorandum of objections was not stamped, but though not stamped,

it is before the Court and the Court, in our opinion, has jurisdiction to deal with it, and the Court cannot be deprived of this jurisdiction because the

respondent refrains from moving it. To hold otherwise might work serious hardship to an appellant. On receiving a copy of the memorandum of

objections an appellant may incur costs in connection with the memorandum in order that he may be prepared to fight it. Rule 88 of the Appellate

Side rules expressly provides that, when a memorandum has been filed, the appellant may file an additional list of documents which he desires to

have translated and printed. If the Court has no jurisdiction to deal with a memorandum of objections which has not been moved an appellant may

have to pay out of his own pocket costs which he has incurred on account of the memorandum of objections, which the respondent, for his own

purposes, refrains from moving. The practice as to the form of order when a memorandum of objections has not been stamped and has not been

moved, does not seem to be uniform, but orders dismissing the memorandum, in such circumstances, have been made and we are of opinion there

is jurisdiction to make the order. If there is jurisdiction for making an order dismissing a memorandum of objections, there is of course jurisdiction

to make an order dismissing it with costs. The memorandum of objections in the present case is dismissed with costs.

In Second Appeal No. 1432 of 1905.-This second appeal is dismissed.