Gehanaji BIn Kes Patil and ors. Vs. Ganpati BIn Lakshuman and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Mumbai |
| Aug-12-1875 |
| Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Nanabhai Haridas, J. |
| (1877)ILR2Bom469 |
| Gehanaji BIn Kes Patil and ors. |
| Ganpati BIn Lakshuman and ors. |
.....by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. - the statement of facts in the report of that case is meagre, but we gather from the argument that some injury to the plaintiff, personally arising from the obstruction complained of, must have been alleged. the plaint in the present case having been read to us, we fail to perceive that any particular injury, resulting to the plaintiffs themselves, is alleged on their behalf;michael westropp, c.j.1. in order to sustain this action, the plaintiffs were bound to show that they themselves had suffered some particular inconvenience by the conduct of the defendants: baroda prasad v. gora chand 3 beng. l.r 295; s.c. 12. cal. w.r., 160 civ. rul:), per peacock, c.j., followed in raj luckhee debia v. chander kant chawdry 14 beng. l.r., 173. the case of jina ranchod v. jodha ghela (l bom; h.c. rep. 1) does not seem to be inconsistent with this. the statement of facts in the report of that case is meagre, but we gather from the argument that some injury to the plaintiff, personally arising from the obstruction complained of, must have been alleged. the plaint in the present case having been read to us, we fail to perceive that any particular injury, resulting to the plaintiffs themselves, is alleged on their behalf; we must, therefore, affirm with costs the decrees of the courts below which rejected their suit.
Michael Westropp, C.J.
1. In order to sustain this action, the plaintiffs were bound to show that they themselves had suffered some particular inconvenience by the conduct of the defendants: Baroda Prasad v. Gora Chand 3 Beng. L.R 295; S.C. 12. Cal. W.R., 160 Civ. Rul:), per Peacock, C.J., followed in Raj Luckhee Debia v. Chander Kant Chawdry 14 Beng. L.R., 173. The case of Jina Ranchod v. Jodha Ghela (l Bom; H.C. Rep. 1) does not seem to be inconsistent with this. The statement of facts in the report of that case is meagre, but we gather from the argument that some injury to the plaintiff, personally arising from the obstruction complained of, must have been alleged. The plaint in the present case having been read to us, we fail to perceive that any particular injury, resulting to the plaintiffs themselves, is alleged on their behalf; we must, therefore, affirm with costs the decrees of the Courts below which rejected their suit.