LAJWANTI Vs. SAFA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is presented under somewhat peculiar and unsatisfactory circumstances. In the recent appeal of Musammat Lajwanti, and others, judgment (1924) L.R. 511. A. 171 was pronounced in which their Lordships said that they would humbly advise His Majesty to allow the appeal and pronounce judgment in favour of the plaintiff. That by the expression "plaintiff" their Lordships designated Musammat Lajwanti alone without the addition of the other appellants is made perfectly clear not only by the use of the singular and not the plural, but also by a sentence in the judgment in which their Lordships, after narrating the claim and suit of the Musammat, added, " Certain persons who might have been respondents backed up the plaintiff and were added as plaintiffs, a very unnecessary proceeding, as no decree could pass in their favour." No representation was made to their Lordships as to there being any error in this.

(2.) ON the judgment being presented to His Majesty in Council for embodiment in the formal order, the word " appellants " in the plural was used. The plaintiff and appellant, Musammat Lajwanti, now presents this petition to have the order made rescinded and an order pronounced in favour of herself alone. Now in ordinary circumstances this petition would be granted as a matter of course. It is the duty of their Lordships to see that the order which His Majesty makes in Council faithfully represents the advice which in the judgment they have said they would humbly tender to him.

(3.) THEIR Lordships disregard the affidavits on both sides. They arc quite contradictory, and it is impossible to determine what the truth is.