RAM SHANKAR Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case which has come before a Bench of this Court on revision on the application of the plaintiff, one Ram Shankar, who brought a suit against the Secretary of State for India. The chief grounds put forward in the application in revision are that the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Agra, had no jurisdiction to review his ex parte decree and that sufficient grounds were not made out for that review. Further that the claim of the plaintiff should have been allowed on the merits.

(2.) The claim of the plaintiff as set forth in his plaint was that one Damodar Das proprietor of a printing press was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Receiver of the time was appointed receiver of the insolvent's assets-and that the Official Receiver took possession of the press and the premises which were leased at a rent of Rs. 55 to the Damodar Printing Press by the plaintiff. Further that the Official Receiver on 1 April 1927 agreed to pay the said rent and that the Official Receiver kept possession of the house until 19 February 1928. A sum of Rs. 605 was therefore due to the plaintiff for use and occupation of the said premises and that the Official Receiver had failed to pay. The Secretary of State was represented before the Small Cause Court and the claim of the plaintiff was decreed apparently after a contest on 26 February 1931. The only issue which had been framed in that suit was : "For what amount if any is the defendant liable?" On 12 March 1931 Mr. Akhtar Ali, the Government Pleader made an application to the Judge of the Small Cause Court stating that in this suit which had been decided a most crucial issue had not been framed which was: Is the Official Receiver an agent or servant of the Secretary of State and is the Secretary of State liable for the acts of the Official Receiver?

(3.) He further stated that he had produced rulings to show that the Secretary of State was not liable. A review was therefore prayed for. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that as the necessary issue had not been framed therefore the review should be granted and be directed that the issue should be framed accordingly. An application bearing no date but with a stamp dated 21 June 1931 was then made on behalf of the plaintiff asking that the Official Receiver be added as a defendant. The Secretary of State therefore became defendant 1 and the Official Receiver became defendant 2. The suit therefore was again tried by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court and he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by an order of 18 July 1931. The grounds of dismissal are firstly that the evidence falls short of proving any contract with the former Official Receiver, that a suit for compensation for use and occupation was also not maintainable, that the insolvency Court had refused permission to sue the present Official Receiver, that the suit was barred by three years limitation against the Official Receiver and was not maintainable against him for want of notice under Section 80, Civil P.C. that the suit could not succeed against the Secretary of State because the Official Receiver had done nothing for which his principal may be held liable even if he were to be considered for certain purposes an accredited agent or servant of the Secretary o? State.