THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Vs. ADAMJI MAHOMEDALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case of a Chamber order which has been issued by the Prothonotary calling upon the Advocate General as plaintiff in Suit No. 125 of 1905 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

(2.) UNQUESTIONABLY this is rather a strong order and in my opinion under Section 80(a) of the High Court Rules it is not an order which was within the jurisdiction of the Prothonotary. Admittedly there was no consent of the Advocate General to that order, and when reference is made to the applications which under Rule 80(a) require consent before the Prothonotary has jurisdiction, it will, I think, be recognised that this application is at least on as high a footing as those mentioned in the rule.

(3.) IT appears to me that the difficulty has arisen almost entirely owing to the form of procedure which the first defendant has elected to adopt. It must have been patent to him from the first that the Advocate General was suing at the instance of relators, and the Advocate General has from the first been willing that the relators should make affidavits concerning the one relevant document in their possession, that is to say, the Will of Piroo Dossa, which is referred to in the annexure to the plaint.