BAPUJI DORABJI Vs. DASTUR KAIKHUSHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to us under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the complaint is that the Small Cause Court, acting under Section 38, has committed an error in jurisdiction.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as alleged by the plaintiff, are that he advanced a sum of money to the firm of Dastur and Davar, and as security for that advance took a promissory note. The promissory note is signed in the handwriting of one Dhanjisha Hormasji Davar, who at that time was undoubtedly a member of the firm of Dastur and Davar. The other member of the firm was the present defendant, Dastur Kaikhushru Dastur. Prior to the suit Dhanjisha died, and so proceedings were taken against the surviving partner alone.

(3.) THAT letter is based upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff on the 4th September 1904, and this affidavit, as far as we can learn from the record and the statement made to us by the counsel and pleader appearing in the case, is the only document which contains the claim as formulated by the plaintiff himself.