Bomanji Jamsetji Mistri And Bai Nawajbai Minor By Her Father And Next Friend, The Said Bomanji Mistri Vs. Nusserwanji Rustomji Mistri On 27 November, 1902

Open iDraf

Bomanji Jamsetji Mistri And Bai Nawajbai Minor By Her Father And Next Friend, The Said Bomanji Mistri v. Nusserwanji Rustomji Mistri

Bomanji Jamsetji Mistri And Bai Nawajbai Minor By Her Father And Next Friend, The Said Bomanji Mistri
v.
Nusserwanji Rustomji Mistri

(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

No | 27-11-1902

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. at p. 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.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties ----

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE RUSSELL

Eq Citation

ILR 1903 27 BOM 100

LQ/BomHC/1902/17

HeadNote

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 91 — Security for costs — When required — Plaintiff trying to make money out of his daughter s engagement — First plaintiff added merely to get over the difficulty as to security — Held, summons must be made absolute and plaintiff to deposit Rs 400 as security within two months — In default, suit to be dismissed with costs