AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
King, J.—Six plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Madras against two Defendants for dissolution of partnership. As one
of these Defendants was admittedly not living in Madras, leave to sue in the City Civil Court had to be obtained. Leave was granted by the City
Civil Judge although it was applied for only after the plaint had been filed, and the question at issue in this revision petition is whether it is not
obligatory in the City Civil Court for such leave to be applied for before the suit is filed.
In support of this position reliance is placed upon Section 8 of the Madras City Civil Court Act which runs as follows:
All questions which arise in suits or other proceedings under this Act in the City Court shall be dealt with and determined according to the law for
the time being administered by the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction
And it is admittedly one of the rules of practice in the High Court that leave to sue in circumstances such as this must be asked for in the plaint
itself.
The question then is whether Section 8 of the Madras City Civil Court Act is wide enough to include the procedure in force in the High Court.
We do not think it is, and we think the word ''law'' in Section 8 was advisedly chosen with reference to the provisions of the Letters Patent. The
''law to be administered by the High Court'' is to be found in Clauses 19 to 21 of the Letters Patent where reference is made to law, equity and
rule of good conscience, but nothing is said about the details of procedure. We see no intrinsic reason why the City Civil Court should be placed in
the same position as the High Court in the matter of procedure - or why it should not be governed by the CPC in which case admittedly leave to
sue can be given after the plaint is filed.
There are thus no sufficient reasons for holding that the order of the City Civil Judge is wrong, and this petition must be dismissed with costs.