The trial Judge decreed both the parts of the claim, placing the damages at Rs.
15 of 1955, Sen, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
300 was number applicable to suits by or against Part C States, and he, therefore, companysidered the matter in the light of s.79 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Prior to the formation of the State of Vindhya Pradesh, a Union of 35 States in Baghelkhand and Bundelkhand had been formed by the Rulers in March, 1948.
The suit was filed in the following circumstances The respondents are bidi merchants, and for that purpose, had obtained on October 18, 1951 from the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa, a lease for plucking and appropriating tendu leaves from.
the Makundpur Range for three years, companymencing from October 18, 1951 on payment of Rs.
Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated February 2, 1956, of the Court of the judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, in Review Application No.
The defendants raised the plea for the first time in appeal before the Judicial Commissioner that the suit was filed against a, wrong defendant.
On December 26, 1949, this Union merged with India, and on January 22, 1950, the United State of Vindhya Pradesh became a Chief Commissioners Province under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Later, on an application for review, he held that Art.
It is against this order that the present appeal has been fired with certificate.
In September, 1951 an Act known as the Government of Part C States Act, 1951, was passed by Parliament, and under it, a Lieutenant Governor was appointed for Vindhya Pradesh.
1,63,000/ per year Ex.
In 1956, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, this Part C State became a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
36,570/ .
The suit was filed on May 11, 1953, after numberices under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were served, inter alia, on the Secretary, Forests and Industries Department, Vindhya Pradesh and the Collector of Rewa.
Before him, a numberification issued by the President appointing the Lieutenant Governor as a person authorised under Order 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was produced, to which earlier his attention had number been called.
1,00,000/ and for a permanent injunction against the State of Vindhya Pradesh.
The suit was filed for a perpetual injunction against this claim and for damages on the averment that the State of Vindhya Pradesh was guilty of breach of the companytract.
C. Mathur, for the respondents.
The Government therefore, demanded the yearly instalments, claiming them under the companytract as the difference between the original companytract amount less the amount fetched by way of fresh auction, which was nil.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
According to them, the proper defendant was the Union of India.
P. 85 .
He accordingly granted review, and modified his judgment and decree by upholding, the claim for perpetual injunction, but he dismissed the claim for damages on merits.
On an application for review the Judicial Commissioner held that there was an error apparent on the face of his earlier judgment, and that the State of Vindhya Pradesh companyld be legally sued.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is ,in appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which stands substituted for the State of Vindhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation, Act, 1956, and is.
Briefly stated the suit was for damages valued at Ls.
Appeals were filed by both sides before the Judicial Commissioner, the appeal of the State Government was allowed and that of the plaintiffs dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the entire suit.
Since the question is one of law, it relieves us of the duty of narrating all the facts.
May 5.
The only question urged in this appeal is that the suit brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh was defective, because the proper defendant was the Union of India.
127 of 1959.
The appeal has been filed on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa.
directed against an order of the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa, by which he modified, on reviews his judgement and decree in a civil suit filed by the respondents against the State of Vindhya Pradesh.
For some reasons into which it is number necessary to go, this companytract was cancelled, and the right was put up for auction, but numberbidders came.
On the companymencement of the Constitution, the Chief Commissioners Province of Vindhya Pradesh became a Part C State administered by the President.
The Judicial Commissioner held that the State of Vindhya Pradesh was number a juristic entity and the suit ought to have been filed against the Union of India.
