MAROTIRAO DESHMUKH Vs. SECY., MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POLLOCK , A.J.C. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by two minor zamindars through their mother as their next friend against the Municipal Committee of Balaghat for an injunction to restrain the Committee from demolishing a wall which the plaintiffs alleged belonged to them. The plaintiff's failed to make out any case and the suit was dismissed. The two lower Courts held that Marotirao, who is the manager of the zamindar's estate and conducted the suit was responsible for this entirely unnecessary piece of litigation and directed that he should be personally liable for defendant's costs. The sole question in this appeal is whether Marotirao was rightly made so liable.

(2.) THE learned Additional District Judge has misconstrued Section 99, Civil P.C., but I have no doubt that he is right in saying that Under Section 35 the Courts have in certain cases power to make persons who are not parties liable for costs, and I agree with the remarks on this point in Shantanad Gir v. Basudgvanad Gir 1930 All 225. Marotirao was at one time Secretery of the Municipal Committee and was a member at the time when the litigation was started. He was admittedly on bad terms with the President and I am of opinion that the lower Courts were justified in drawing the inference that he and not the plaintiff's mother was responsible for this litigation I therefore decline to interfere with the order that he should pay the defendant's costs and dismiss the appeal with costs.