BAPUJI DORABJI Vs. DASTUR KAIKHUSHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to us under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the complaint is that the Small Cause Court, acting under Section 38, has committed an error in jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts of the case, as alleged by the plaintiff, are that he advanced a sum of money to the firm of Dastur and Davar, and as security for that advance took a promissory note. The promissory note is signed in the handwriting of one Dhanjisha Hormasji Davar, who at that time was undoubtedly a member of the firm of Dastur and Davar. The other member of the firm was the present defendant, Dastur Kaikhushru Dastur. Prior to the suit Dhanjisha died, and so proceedings were taken against the surviving partner alone.

(3.) The record before us does not contain any summons, but a letter addressed to the defendant under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, in lieu of a summons.