TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyee of the ex-Ruler, were also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had placed the orders as agents of, the ex-Ruler. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent of the Central Government under s. 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure was not obtained and asked that the suit be dismissed. The other defendants denied the claim and also their lability on various grounds. It may be mentioned the Military Secretary (second defendant) has since died, and this appeal is now directed against the ex-Ruler and Mohabat Singh only. The Subordinate Judge held that though the suit was filed prior to the enactment of s. 87-B by s. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1951 (11 of 1951), it could not be continued against the ex-Ruler. He adjourned the hearing for four months to enable the appellant to obtain the necessary consent. The appellant applied to the Central Government for its consent, but it was refused. He also applied in revision to the Judicial Commissioner, contending that s. 87-B of the. Code of Civil Procedure offended the equality clause in Art. 14 of the Constitution and was thus void, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tates may sue. Section 85 provided for the appointment by Government of persons to prosecute or defend Princes or Chiefs. Section 86 provided for suits against Princes, Chiefs, Ambassadors and Envoys. It created partial ex-territoriality by granting them exemption from civil jurisdiction except when an action was brought with the consent of the Central Government. The first sub-section provided:- Any such Prince or Chief, and any ambassador or envoy of a foreign State, may in the case of the Ruling Chief of an Indian State with the consent of the Crown Representative, certified by the signature of the Political Secretary, and in any other case with the consent of the Central Government, certified by the signature of a secretary to that Government, but not without such consent, be sued in any competent Court. The remaining four sub-sections dealt with the kinds of suits and the conditions under which they could be brought and certain other aspects Of ex-territoriality. Section 87 laid down the style of Princes or Chiefs as parties to suits. After the coming into force of the Constitution, certain adaptations were made by the President by the Adaptations of Laws Order 1950 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est and, except with the consent of the Central Government, against execution of decrees against the property of any such Ruler. Section 87 laid down the style of foreign Rulers as parties to suits. Section 87-A was added to define foreign State and Ruler and to make the exemption only available to a State and its head, recognised as such by the Central Government. Section 87-B, with which we are concerned, was specially enacted in respect of suits against Rulers of former Indian States. It provided: 87-B. (1) The provisions of section 85 and of sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 86 shall apply in relation to the Rulers of any former Indian State as they apply in relation to the Ruler of a foreign State. (2) In this section- (a)former Indian State means any such Indian State as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for the purposes of this section; and (b) Ruler in relation to a former Indian State, means the person who, for the time being, is recognised by the President as the Ruler of that State for the purposes of the Constitution. By this provision, which is very much the same as the former s. 86, the privilege p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, these arguments cannot be accepted. The word sued means not only the filing of a suit or a civil proceeding but also their pursuit through Courts. A person is sued not only when the plaint is filed, but is sued also when the suit remains pending against him. The word sued covers the entire proceeding in an action, and the person proceeded against is sued throughout the duration of the action. It follows that consent is necessary not only for the filing of the suit against the ex-Ruler but also for its continuation from the time consent is required. In view of the amplitude of the word sued , it is not necessary to consider generally to what extent pending cases are affected by subsequent legislation or refer to the principles laid down in The United Provinces V.,, Atiqa Begum ([1940] F.C.R.110), Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishnaswamy Reddiar ([1943] F.C.R. 39.) or Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury ([1957] S.C.R.4ss.). If the language of s. 86 read with s. 87-B were applicable only to the initiation of a civil suit, these cases might have been helpful; but since the words may sue include not only the initiation of a suit but its continuation also, it is manifest tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
