Page images
PDF
EPUB

judgment debtor; and so far it may be held that sufficient notice of the existence of the claim had been given to the debtor.

"I refer the matter to a bench of three judges, that the proper course to be followed may be duly considered.

"A second point taken is, as to whether petitioner should be saddled with interest on the sum due (costs of suit,) considering the delay that has occurred in the enforcement of the principal."

JUDGMENT.

[ocr errors]

In again arguing this case for the petitioner, Moonshee Ameer Alee requires the time to be calculated in applying the principle of limitation to run from the date of the original decision, But besides the rule deducible from the cases noticed in the above reference, we find that the decision reported at page 1167 of the Decisions of 1857 rules, that the 12 years' limitation should be reckoned from the date of the last process sued out by the decreeholder. We cannot doubt therefore that the proceedings in execution, which were disposed of on the 27th June 1856, brings the present application within time.

Again, as to the point of interest, it appears that the amount applied for by the decreeholder considerably exceeds the principal decreed. Now the case reported at page 609 of the Decisions of 1855, shews that ordinarily a judgment debtor is liable for the interest due till the principal be paid: but it appears to us that some discretion may be exercised by the courts, where, as in this instance, much delay on the part of the decreeholder has been suffered to occur in the enforcement of the decreed debt: and we think that the interest to be given should not exceed the principal due at the date of execution. With this modification, we affirm the order of the lower court.

THE 8TH JULY 1858.

PRESENT:

B. J. COLVIN, ESQ., Judges.
A. SCONCE, Esq.,

D. I. MONEY, Esq., Officiating Judge.

CASE NO. 522 OF 1857.

www

Summary Special Appeal from the decision of Mr. G. P. Leycester,
Officiating Judge of Midnapore, dated 28th November 1856,
affirming a decree of Mr. E. B. Baker, superintendent of the
Salt Chowkees at Jellessur, in that district, dated 30th May 1856.
RUTNAKUR PUHAREE IJARADAR, (DEFENDANT,)

APPELLANT,

versus

GOVERNMENT, (PLAINTIFF,) Respondent.
Vakeels of Appellant- Moonshee Ameer Alee and Baboos
Gobindehunder Mookerjee and Meherchunder Chowdree.

Vakeel of Respondent-Baboo Ramapersad Roy.

THS special appeal was, in the first instance, rejected by Messrs. H. T. Raikes and A. Sconce, on the 5th May 1857, under the following remarks recorded by them.

"The special appellant has been fined rupees 500, under Section XXVII. Regulation XXIX. of 1838, and pleads that the judge has recorded that there is no legal proof of his knowledge of the salt work, and only infers it from certain circumstances which in no way justify the inference he has drawn.

"The law, we observe, does not bind the judge on this point, beyond the exercise of a discretion, as to the nature of the proof which he deems sufficient to support a charge of this description: and as he has detailed the circumstances which lead him to infer that the special appellant had means of knowing of the existence of the salt work, we cannot, in special appeal, question the propriety of the conclusions drawn by him.

"We reject this petition."

On a petition for review of judgment, the Court (Messrs. H. T. Raikes and A. Sconce) admitted the special appeal on the 20th February 1858, under the following order.

"As we have omitted, when hearing this special appeal application, to consider whether the judge's finding was in conformity with that part of the law which requires that the land owner shall have failed to give notice of a salt work within ten days of his acquiring the knowledge of its existence on his lands, the applicant

S

[blocks in formation]

This case

was nonsuited

by the principal sudder

ameen on the

supposition

that three peti

has prayed for a review of our order, on the ground, that the judge's decision is not based on such finding of the facts in the case before him; and as this appears to be true, we admit the special appeal to try the validity of the judge's judgment on this point, referring to the principle laid down by the Court on the trial of a similar case on the 20th of August 1857, Sumbooram Mirdha, petitioner, versus Government, respondent."

JUDGMENT.

This case corresponds with that reported at page 1489, of the Decisions of 1857. The petitioner has been fined, under Section XXVII. Regulation XXIX. of 1838, for knowing and failing to give notice of the existence of a saltwork carried on within his farm. The zillah judge has merely, however, stated his reasons for inferring the farmer's knowledge, but has failed to find, what the above decision has held to be legally necessary, that the saltwork had been actually in operation ten days before the illicit salt and implements of manufacture had been seized by the salt officers.

We accordingly reverse the orders of the judge, and direct the fine imposed (rupees 500,) if levied, to be refunded. Costs will be charged to the Government.

THE 13TH JULY 1858.

PRESENT:

B. J. COLVIN, ESQ., Judges.
A. SCONCE, Esq.,

D. I. MONEY, Esq, Officiating Judge.

CASE NO. 23 OF 1858.

www

Summary Appeal from the decision of Baboo Tarakanth Biddyasagur, Principal Sudder Ameen of Cuttack, dated 17th November 1857.

MOHUNT GOBIND RAMANUND DASS, PETITIONER,

versus

GOBIND TEWARRY AND OTHERS, OPPOSITE PARTY.
Vakeels of Petitioner-Mr. R. T. Allan and
Baboo Obhoychurn Bose.

Vakeel of the Opposite Party-None.

THIS case was referred to the full bench on the 18th May 1858, under the following remarks recorded by Mr. A. Sconce.

"This case has been nonsuited by the principal sudder ameen because, as he supposes, plaintiff, appellant, had filed more than one supplementary plaint.

were three

"It appears, that in consequence of defendants' objecting to the tions resented undervaluation of the plaintiff, appellant immediately filed an addi- by the plaintiff tional stamp of rupees 150 value; and though at the same time supplemental plaintiff held that the extra valuation was unnecessary, the princi- t is held on plaints; but pal sudder ameen is of opinion that he must be held to have assent- appeal that the ed to the statement of defendants. first petition, to amend the

"Next, it appears that, on the 2nd February 1857, plaintiff gave value of the in a petition for the purpose of correcting a mistake made in his plaint as to the residence of one of the defendants Bullub Bhartee, and for substituting Goolzar Khan as a defendant in lieu of his father Imamoodeen, who had died, as he afterwards found, before the institution of the suit.

"And lastly, on the 29th April, petitioner gave in a third petition for the purpose of adding another person, Bonomalee Muhapathur, as a defendant to meet the objection taken to his absence. "The principal sudder ameen would appear to consider the two last petitions inadmissible after the first which presented an increased stamp, and has nonsuited plaintiff.

"The grounds of appeal are, first, that the first petition is not, in the sense of the law, a supplementary plaint, but only a duplicate, specially admissible under the stamp law; and secondly, that the two following petitions are obvious corrections of errors, neither calculated to enlarge nor to vary the original ground of action.'

JUDGMENT.

The first petition having reference only to the valuation of the suit is clearly a duplicate and not a supplemental plaint.

The second petition being an application to correct an error and substitute a son in the place of his father as a defendant, and the third petition to add to the list of defendants a party necessary to the suit, cannot either of them be considered in the light of a supplementary plaint.

Such applications for the correction merely of errors, and for the purpose of bringing all the parties to the suit before the court, without introducing any fresh matter or interest into the record, are only precautionary measures that are necessary for the proper conduct of the suit.

It has been, moreover, urged by the petitioner's pleader, and we admit the force of the plea, that the principal sudder ameen was in error in holding that an order of nonsuit only could be passed upon the rejection of the two last petitions, inasmuch as the suit could have proceeded between the petitioner and the other defendants, in conformity with the ruling of this Court of the 16th March 1852, in the case of Judoo Sooth, petitioner.

The principal sudder ameen's order is reversed, and the case will be returned to him to be disposed of on its merits.

plaint, was a
duplicate
plaint, and the
second and
to the defend-

third, relative

ants to be brought before

the court, merely cor

rected errors in the plaint

and did not order of nonjustify the suit passed.

THE 19TH JULY 1858.

PRESENT:

Upon the mutual agreement of the only parties before him in the suit, the judge struck off the case.

that the peti

party, could

have no status in the court, until by the sanction and act of the

court he had

[blocks in formation]

Summary Appeal from the decision of Mr. R. Abercrombie, Judge of Dacca, dated 8th April 1858. NUBEENCHUNDER SHAH, PETITIONER,

versus

ANUNDMOYE AND BUNKOOCHUNDER CHATTERJEE,
OPPOSITE PARTY.

Vakeel of Petitioner-Moulvee Murhamut Hossein. Vakeels of the Opposite Party-Baboos Kishensuka Mookerjee and Kishenkishore Ghose.

THIS case was referred to a full bench, on the 2nd July 1858, by Mr. A. Sconce, under the following remarks.

"In this case, a decree for the land sued for had been given in favour of plaintiff in the first court against the defendant Anundmoye. From this decision Anundmoye appealed to the zillah It was held judge; but subsequently to the presentation of the appeal, Anundtioner, a third moye and her sister, Brijsoonderee, on the 24th Phalgoon 1263, for the sum of rupees 8,000, sold their rights and interests in the property under contest to the present petitioner ; and, by a petition, they, on the 17th March 1857, intimated to the judge the fact of the sale having been made, with a request that the purchaser, Nobeenchunder, should be allowed to carry on the appeal. To the ed in the place same effect, Nobeenchunder petitioned. Subsequently, however, of the original plaintiff and Anundmoye, the original defendant, professed to compromise their dispute, and application was made to the judge that the appeal should so be disposed of: and it came before the judge to be determined whether he should permit Anundmoye to withdraw her appeal, by giving effect to the compromise: or, holding Anundmoye to have parted with her interest in the suit, should consider her incompetent to adjust the dispute and should hear the appeal at the instance of Nobeenchunder, the purchaser

been substitut

defendant, and that consequently he

could not come before the Court summarily, and,

upon the alle

gation of the

purchase of the

property from the original defendant, ap peal against the order of the judge.

Held also that if the

from her.

"The judge has suffered himself to be bound by the compromise; hence this appeal. Considering the common practice of our courts to recognise transfers of the kind which petitioner professes to have acquired, it seems to me that the judge should have considered

« PreviousContinue »