ADVOCATE GENERAL Vs. ADAMJI MAHOMEDALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of a Chamber order which has been issued by the Prothonotary calling upon the Advocate General as plaintiff in Suit No. 125 of 1905 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

(2.) Unquestionably this is rather a strong order and in my opinion under Section 80(a) of the High Court Rules it is not an order which was within the jurisdiction of the Prothonotary. Admittedly there was no consent of the Advocate General to that order, and when reference is made to the applications which under Rule 80(a) require consent before the Prothonotary has jurisdiction, it will, I think, be recognised that this application is at least on as high a footing as those mentioned in the rule.

(3.) Then it is not, I understand, denied that the position of the Advocate General here corresponds by Statutory Enactments to the position held by the Attorney General in England, and there is ample authority for the view that in general the Attorney General is not called upon to make discovery upon oath. It is relevant to add, as the Honourable Mr. Scott assures me, that so far as he recollects, he has not in the past been called upon to make such discovery. I should certainly be reluctant to introduce a practice different from that which obtains in England in this matter.