Miss M.J. D'silva Vs. Miss D.J.S. Minizis (11.10.1912 - BOMHC) - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/343876 |
| Subject | Civil |
| Court | Mumbai |
| Decided On | Oct-11-1912 |
| Case Number | Appeal from Order No. 33 of 1912 |
| Judge | Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. and ;Chandavarkar, J. |
| Reported in | (1912)14BOMLR1207; 17Ind.Cas.972 |
| Appellant | Miss M.J. D'silva |
| Respondent | Miss D.J.S. Minizis |
Excerpt:
jurisdiction-court-suit against public officer-suit against collector at court of wards-suit can lie in district-court-court of wards act (bom. act 1 of 1905)-bombay civil courts act (xiv of 1869), section 82.;a suit brought against the collector as a court of wards, constituted under the court of wards act (bombay act i of 1905), can be entertained only by a district court, in virtue of the provisions of section 32 of the bombay civil courts act, 1869. - .....of bombay act i of 1905.2. the question is whether he is sued as an officer of government in his official capacity.3. section 3 of the court of wards act of 1905 enables the governor in council to appoint certain officers to be a court of wards for any part of the presidency. the power of the governor in council is confined to the appointment of officers and, therefore, it is only as an officer of government that the second defendant is a court of wards, we think, therefore, that he is an officer of government sued in his official capacity and that, therefore, under section 32 of act xiv of 1869, the subordinate judge's court cannot entertain the suit.4. we, therefore, affirm the order of the subordinate judge.5. if the plaint is not presented in the proper court within a month the.....
Judgment:Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. Accepting the view of the District Judge stated in his judgment of the 7th of October 1911 in support of his order returning the plaint for presentation to the Subordinate Judge's Court, we take it that the second defendant was appointed Court of Wards under Section 3(c) of Bombay Act I of 1905.
2. The question is whether he is sued as an Officer of Government in his official capacity.
3. Section 3 of the Court of Wards Act of 1905 enables the Governor in Council to appoint certain Officers to be a Court of Wards for any part of the Presidency. The power of the Governor in Council is confined to the appointment of Officers and, therefore, it is only as an Officer of Government that the second defendant is a Court of Wards, We think, therefore, that he is an Officer of Government sued in his official capacity and that, therefore, under Section 32 of Act XIV of 1869, the Subordinate Judge's Court cannot entertain the suit.
4. We, therefore, affirm the order of the Subordinate Judge.
5. If the plaint is not presented in the proper Court within a month the plaintiff must pay all the costs. If it is so presented the costs throughout will be costs in the cause.