RAMPRASAD CHIMANLAL Vs. HAZARIMULL LALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the Master, who has refused to admit a plaint on the ground that it is not in accordance with the rules of pleading laid down in the Civil Procedure Code-and discloses no cause of action. He pointed out the defects to the attorney and asked him to amend the plaint and present it again so that the necessary alterations could be made before any costs had been incurred by the defendant.

(2.) The attorney presented the plaint again, but in its original form unaltered, saying that his client declined to rectify the defects, and had been advised to prefer an appeal and asked the Master to record his reasons for refusing to admit the plaint. This the Master has done fully upon the back of the plaint.

(3.) I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the attorney and the advocate who drew the plaint. The Master gave them an opportunity to put the plaint in order at a time when this could be done without burdening the client with any costs. The client's only interest in the form of the plaint is to see that it is drawn in such a way that it is immune from attack. Instead of availing themselves of this opportunity, so fairly given them by the Master, they have chosen to incur further costs in disputing his decision. I trust that the unfortunate client will not be asked to pay them, and that the prestige of the advocate and the attorney will not be defended at the cost of the client.