Skip to content


Bomanji Jamsetji Mistri and Bai Nawajbai Minor by Her Father and Next Friend, the Said Bomanji Mistri Vs. Nusserwanji Rustomji Mistri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1904)ILR27Bom65
AppellantBomanji Jamsetji Mistri and Bai Nawajbai Minor by Her Father and Next Friend, the Said Bomanji Mistr
RespondentNusserwanji Rustomji Mistri
Excerpt:
practice - costs, security for--civil procedure code (x1v of 1882), section 380--two plaintiffs, father and daughter--suit for damages for breach of promise to marry. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91).....russel, j.1. i must make the summons absolute. looking at the form of the plaint, i think, the advocate general's argument is well founded, that the first plaintiff is trying to make money out of his daughter's engagement. it appears to me that the first plaintiff is added merely to get over the difficulty as to security, if possible. the present case is clearly: distinguishable, from bai porebai v. devji meghji (1898) 23 bom. 100 and falls within the dictum of bowen, l.j., in cowell v. taylor (1885) 31 ch. d. 38.2. the section vests a discretion in me, and, in my opinion, i must exercise it in favour of the defendant. i therefore order that the summons be made absolute. plaintiff to deposit rs. 400 as security within two months. in default, suit to be dismissed with costs. if the deposit.....
Judgment:

Russel, J.

1. I must make the summons absolute. Looking at the form of the plaint, I think, the Advocate General's argument is well founded, that the first plaintiff is trying to make money out of his daughter's engagement. It appears to me that the first plaintiff is added merely to get over the difficulty as to security, if possible. The present case is clearly: distinguishable, from Bai Porebai v. Devji Meghji (1898) 23 Bom. 100 and falls within the dictum of Bowen, L.J., in Cowell v. Taylor (1885) 31 ch. D. 38.

2. The section vests a discretion in me, and, in my opinion, I must exercise it in favour of the defendant. I therefore order that the summons be made absolute. Plaintiff to deposit Rs. 400 as security within two months. In default, suit to be dismissed with costs. If the deposit be made, costs to be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //