AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We concur in the decision of this Court in Appeal No. 230 of 1895 and must therefore hold that the fact that no notice of the petition was given
to the defendants (the present petitioners) by the District Judge does not render his order granting leave to sue liable to be set aside--if the order
was in accordance with law in other respects. We, however, find that leave was granted on an unverified letter apparently not presented in Court
enclosing a Mahazarnamah purporting to be from certain persons of the Mussalman community of Kurnool. We think that the District Judge acted
with material irregularity within the meaning of Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in treating such a letter as an application u/s 18 of Act
XX of 1863. Section 647 of the CPC contemplates that 2nd August 1001 certain formalities of procedure be observed even in miscellaneous
applications like the present, which are not suits. We think that an application u/s 18 of the Act XX of 1863 should be duly verified and presented
either in person or by pleader as in the case of plaints.
We must, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge with costs in this Court.