AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.—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 u/s 3(c) of Bombay Act I of 1905.
The question is whether he is sued as an Officer of Government in his official capacity.
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, u/s 32 of Act XIV of 1869, the Subordinate Judge''s Court cannot entertain the suit.
We, therefore, affirm the order of the Subordinate Judge.
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.