High CourtsDivision Bench(1907) 08 BOM CK 0011

Jan Mahomed Abdul vs Syed Nurudin

Bombay High Court · Decided on 6 August 1907 · Citation: (1907) 9 BOMLR 996

HON’BLE JUDGES
Heaton, J · Chandavarkar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 1482 from the decision in Original Suit No. 778 of 1905

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 140 words

Chandavarkar, J.—We are against the appellants on the preliminary objection to this appeal raised by the respondents'' counsel. We are of opinion that the suit having been brought by the Advocate General, he was the proper party to appeal and not the relators who have filed this appeal. They were not parties to the suit and as relators they have no right to step in when the Advocate General, who was plaintiff, has not thought fit to appeal against the dismissal of the suit.

2.

The authorities cited by Mr. Strangman, viz. Daniell''s Chancery Practice, Vol. 1, page 56,. and The Attorney-General v. Wright (1841) 3 Beav. 447 are in point.

3.

The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs (including the costs reserved yesterday) upon the ground that the appeal does not lie at the instance of the relators.