MARTI SATYANARAYANA Vs. GUJAVARTI ANJAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the Court is called upon to decide whether the word plaintiff in Section 95 of the Civil P. C. must be deemed to include the next friend of a minor plaintiff.

(2.) Section 95 provides that where in a suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under Section 94, it appears to the Court that the application was made on insufficient grounds, or the suit fails and it appears that there was no reasonable or probable ground for its institution, the defendant may apply to the Court, and the Court may award against the plaintiff reasonable compensation; not exceeding Rs. 1,000, for the expense or injury caused to him. An order determining an application of this nature bars a suit for compensation.

(3.) In the present case the petitioner, as the next friend of a minor, filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam a suit against the respondent and at the same time filed an application for the attachment before judgment of property belonging to the respondent. The claim was on a promissory-note. The application for attachment before judgment was granted, but in the course of the suit it became apparent that the application ought not to have been made and the respondent applied for an order against the petitioner and the minor plaintiff under Section 95. The Subordinate Judge hold that the minor plaintiff was not responsible for the filing of the application for attachment before judgment. Clearly he was not. The responsibility rested entirely with the petitioner. Accordingly the Subordinate Judge passed an order against the petitioner directing him to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 200 by way of compensation.