Ram Ballabh vs United States of Rajasthan and others

Nigam, J.C.

This suit was ordered to proceed ''ex parte'' against defendant No. 1 on 27-4-1951. On 9-1-1952 an application was moved under O. 9, R. 7 on behalf of defendant No. 1. By his order dated 6-3-1952, the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, on payment of Rs. 40/- as costs, set aside the ''ex parte'' proceedings and permitted defendant No. 1 to put in his written statement. Against that order, Ramballabh plaintiff has come up in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 have not addressed me.

The second objection taken by the learned counsel is that the document is executed in the name of the Government of Rajasthan and not in the name of Rajpramukh of United States of Rajasthan. The learned counsel has referred me to -- Shripad Amrit Dange Vs. Sir Harsiddhbhai V. Divatia, . The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has referred me to -- Mahomed Yasin Nurie Vs. Shripat Amrit Dange, which specifically reversed the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. I am, therefore, unable to see much distinction between the words Government of Rajasthan and the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan. Under S. 3, sub-section (60) of the General Clauses Act the State Government in respect of Part ''B'' States means the Rajpramukh and under Art. 166(2) of the Constitution read with Art. 238 orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Rajpramukh may be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Rajpramukh.

These rules were published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part I, dated 24-1-1951. These rules permit a Secretary to authenticate orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Rajpramukh. The document dated 5-1-1952 referred to above was authenticated by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. The contention of the learned counsel is that the ''Chief Secretary'' is not a ''Secretary'' within the terms of R. 1 of the rules framed by the Rajpramukh under Art. 166(2) read with Art. 238 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Secretary is only the chief among the Secretaries that is the principal Secretary to the State Government and I have no doubt in my mind that he is a Secretary within the terms of rule 1 mentioned above. I am, therefore, unable to see any force in the contention of the learned counsel.

The next contention of the learned counsel is that an order under Order 27, R. 2 of the CPC should be duly published in the State Gazette. The learned counsel is unable to cite any law or authority in support of his contention, but urges that this has been the usual practice. I am of opinion that publication in the Gazette is only a matter of convenience and is adopted for the purpose of general information and wide publicity and also to permit courts to take judicial notice of certain acts. Publication in the Gazette is certainly not essential for a valid notification under Order 27, R. 2, Civil P.C. Publication in the Gazette is only a matter of convenience. In the absence of such publication the person in whose favour the authority is executed will have to produce either the original document or a certified copy of the same in every suit in which he appears. I am of opinion that publication in the Gazette is not an essential ingredient of a valid authority under Order 27, R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, I see no force in this revision application and dismiss it with costs to opposite party No. 1.