MOHANLAL JAIN Vs. HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SHRI SAWAI MAN SINGHJI EX RULER OF JAIPUR AN
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
April 03,1961
MOHANLAL JAIN
Appellant
VERSUS
HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SHRI SAWAI MAN SINGHJI,EX.RULER OF JAIPUR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAGHUNATHRAO GANPATRAO SRIKANTA DATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADIYAR MYSORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1993-2-20] [REFERRED TO]JASWANTSINGHJI JU DEO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1970-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
BEHBOOD ALI KHAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1967-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. MEGHALAYA PLYWOODS LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2002-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
H V RATHRE VS. CHIEF SECRETARY AND [LAWS(KAR)-1962-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
H NNANJUNDASWAMY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1962-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL NEPAL AIRLINE CORPORATION VS. MONORAMA MEHER SINGH LEGHA [LAWS(CAL)-1964-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRAVASINGH MALOJIRAO GHCRPODE VS. SHANKAR RAO BINDU RAO [LAWS(KAR)-1976-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL DHANNALAL VS. SHIVPRASAD BHOLARAM [LAWS(MPH)-1963-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
GOKULDAS PAGARIA VS. PARMANAND CHAURASIA [LAWS(MPH)-1967-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA BALA DASI VS. PROBODH CHANDRA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1988-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
KHODAY BREWING AND DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1989-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
A SATHYAPAL VS. YASMIN BANU ANSARI [LAWS(KAR)-2004-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
P C SEN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
NAROTTAM KISHORE DEB VARMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1964-3-35] [REFERRED]
MAHARAJ KUMAR TOKENDRA BIR SINGH VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [LAWS(SC)-1964-3-40] [REFERRED]
MITHILESH KUMARI VS. PREM BEHARI KHARE [LAWS(SC)-1989-2-62] [RELIED ON]
DARSHAN SINGH SURJEET SINGH KEHAR SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH MEWA SINGH KESAR SINGH MOHINDER SINGH SADHU SINGH VS. RAM PAL SINGH:JAGIR SINGH:TARA SINGH:PRITAMKAUR:WARYAM SINGH:MOHINDER SINGH:PRITAM KAUR:SHER SINGH AND ANOHER [LAWS(SC)-1990-11-11] [CITED]
BHARAT GENERAL AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. MUIR MILLS CO LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1967-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH JHA VS. CHANDESHWAR JHA [LAWS(PAT)-1983-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN PYARI VS. SHANTI DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1977-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD VS. V.N.V. CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-387] [REFERRED TO]
H.V.R. Athre VS. The Chief Secretary and another [LAWS(KAR)-1962-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
TIKKA SHATRUJIT SINGH VS. BRIG. SUKHJIT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-286] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RAM PYARI VS. HARI RAM BHARGVA [LAWS(ALL)-1991-9-105] [REFERRED TO]
HARDYAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1969-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
NAWAB MIR BEHBOOD ALI KHAN VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [LAWS(APH)-1967-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UKRAINE & ANR. VS. ELITARIOUS LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-1998-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA KUMARI MEGHWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA BHARDWAJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
RCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-241] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Hidayatullah, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer confirming the decree of the trial Judge dismissing the suit. It comes before us on a certificate under Arts. 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Rajasthan after the reorganisation of the States.
(2.)The suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in the year 1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State, (including interest) and damages suffered by the appellant due to the refusal of the defendants to take delivery of some other goods similarly ordered. In addition to the ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary and one Mohabat Singh, an employee of the ex-Ruler, were also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had placed the orders as agents of the ex-Ruler. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent of the Central Government under S. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure was not obtained and asked that the suit be dismissed. The other defendants denied the claim and also their liability on various grounds, it may be mentioned the Military Secretary (second defendant) has since died and this appeal is now directed against the ex-Ruler and Mohabat Singh only.
(3.)The Subordinate Judge held that though the suit was filed prior to the enactment of S. 87B by S. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1951 (II of 1951), it could not be continued against the ex-Ruler. He adjourned the hearing for four months to enable the appellant to obtain the necessary consent. The appellant applied to the Central Government for its consent, but it was refused. He also applied in revision to the Judicial Commissioner, contending that S. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure offended the equality clause in Art. 14 of the Constitution and was thus void, but the Judicial Commissioner rejected the contention. He also refused a certificate on the ground that there was no final order as required by Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution. The suit was subsequently dismissed against all the three defendants. In regard to the exRuler, it was held that no suit lay against him without the consent of the Central Government, and in regard to the remaining defendants, it was held that they were protected by S. 230 of the Indian Contract Act. Sub-section (3) of that section was held inapplicable, inasmuch as a suit could be filed against the ex-Ruler with the consent of the Central Government. The appellant appealed to the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, but the appeal was dismissed. He obtained a certificate, as stated above, and this appeal has been filed.
(2.)The suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in the year 1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State, (including interest) and damages suffered by the appellant due to the refusal of the defendants to take delivery of some other goods similarly ordered. In addition to the ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary and one Mohabat Singh, an employee of the ex-Ruler, were also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had placed the orders as agents of the ex-Ruler. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent of the Central Government under S. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure was not obtained and asked that the suit be dismissed. The other defendants denied the claim and also their liability on various grounds, it may be mentioned the Military Secretary (second defendant) has since died and this appeal is now directed against the ex-Ruler and Mohabat Singh only.
(3.)The Subordinate Judge held that though the suit was filed prior to the enactment of S. 87B by S. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1951 (II of 1951), it could not be continued against the ex-Ruler. He adjourned the hearing for four months to enable the appellant to obtain the necessary consent. The appellant applied to the Central Government for its consent, but it was refused. He also applied in revision to the Judicial Commissioner, contending that S. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure offended the equality clause in Art. 14 of the Constitution and was thus void, but the Judicial Commissioner rejected the contention. He also refused a certificate on the ground that there was no final order as required by Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution. The suit was subsequently dismissed against all the three defendants. In regard to the exRuler, it was held that no suit lay against him without the consent of the Central Government, and in regard to the remaining defendants, it was held that they were protected by S. 230 of the Indian Contract Act. Sub-section (3) of that section was held inapplicable, inasmuch as a suit could be filed against the ex-Ruler with the consent of the Central Government. The appellant appealed to the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, but the appeal was dismissed. He obtained a certificate, as stated above, and this appeal has been filed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.