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
7 paragraphs · 152 wordsWe agree with the Acting District Judge that the suit is not properly one for a declaratory decree u/s 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The ground
of action really is that the defendant by fraud has obtained an advantage in proceedings in a Court having jurisdiction which must necessarily make
that Court an instrument of injustice and the remedy would appear to be by way of injunction to restrain the party from executing the decree. The
Court cannot itself be made a party to the suit--see Dhuronidhur Sen v. The Agra Bank ILR 5 Cal. 86; and references thereunder. Daniell''s
Chancery Practice, 3rd edition, p. 1218 (4th edition, p. 1471). Drury on Injunctions, p. 96. Story''s Equity Jurisprudence, �� 899-900.
We cannot allow the plaint to be amended, as to do so would change the character of the suit.
The second appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.