High CourtsSingle Bench

Geereeballa Dabee and Another vs Chunder Kant Mookerjee and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 10 March 1885 · Citation: (1885) ILR (Cal) 213

HON’BLE JUDGES
Wilson, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 30
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 169 words

Wilson, J.—In delivering judgment, stated that he wag of opinion that the technical objection to the suit was a valid one, the suit being one purporting to be brought u/s 30 of the Code, and, as such, only permissible when leave to sue in that way had been obtained. He therefore dismissed the suit on that ground, stating, however, that he would have been unwilling to dismiss the suit on such a ground if he had thought that there was any substance in the plaintiffs'' case, but as Mr. Pugh had rested his case on the pleadings and had called no evidence, there was no ground for thinking that the suit was a substantial one; and as the next friend of the plaintiff had had an opportunity of calling evidence and of satisfying the Court that the suit was one really for the benefit of the infants, but had chosen to adduce no evidence, the suit must be dismissed with costs against him personally, Khantomoney bearing her own costs.