BAPUJI SORABJI PATEL Vs. LAKHMIDAS RAVJI TERSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a consent decree where I am doubtful that I have been told all the material facts. The innocent application that is made to me by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is that by consent the suit should be dismissed against them without costs.

(2.) The suit is apparently on a promissory note for, I am told, Rs. 15,000. I am also told that the plaintiff has now been paid by defendant No. 3, and that defendant No. 3 has no claim for contribution against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. But defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are not sui juris. They are merely defendants because they have been appointed Receivers in an action for partition or administration of the assets of the original first defendant one Lallu-bhai Nathoochand since deceased. I have not seen the plaint in that action in which they have been appointed Receivers, nor the order, and I had considerable difficulty in ascertaining from their counsel what the nature of the action was. This is what I am told.

(3.) I further understand that an application was made to the Chamber Judge, Mr. Justica Kajiji, on behalf of these Receivers, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, to sanction the compromise in this suit on the lines I have indicated. I am farther informed that Mr. Justice Kajiji has refused that application. I understand further from what was told me on a previous occasion that the parties had gone before another Chamber Judge, Mr. Justice Kemp, to get the requisite sanction but had once more failed.