Section 10 Clause 5 1814 , Regulation XXIII Section 25 Clause 3 1833 Regulation XII Section 2 Clause 5 1823 Regulation VI Sections 5 Clause 4 The Civil Courts can mot interfere with the estate of a lunatic, consisting only of personal pro perty 1814 Regulation XXVIII Case of a plantıff having instituted his action originally on stamp paper, bút pleading pauperism, when required to fill a supplementary plaint to amendhus origual plaint ( * 8२ ) tion XX 1817, lie to the Session Judge, and not to the Superintendent of Police Calcutta Court, 30th July, Western Court, 20th August A prosecutes B in the Moonsiff's Court for possession of real property in virtue of a deed of sale After the suit is instituted, but before its decision, the rights and interests of B, in the said property are sold by the Collector to C, in satisfaction of a decree of Court Has the Moonsiff authority to receive an amended plea, including C, amongst the defendants, or can the Judge give him such authority It was held that the application by the plaintiff to include C, as a defendant in his action under the vircumstances stated is not of the nature of a suplemental plaint (which the Moonsiff is not competent to receive ) contemplated by the regulations which provide a remedy for enabling parties to supply omissions arising from mistake, inadvertence or other cause (Section 5, ltegulation IV 1793) The case submitted does not embrace either the rectification of any error, or the supplying of any omission, but involves the competency or otherwise of a plauntiff to make application to the Court with a view to meet circumstances arising subsequently to the Institution of the suit over which the Moonsiff had no control whatever It was ruled accordingly that the Moonsiff is competent to receive an applıcatıon froın the plaıntıff to ınclude C ın hıs action, and to pro ceed with it iccordingly Western Court, 28th August, Calcutta Court, 17th September Held that the provisions of Clause 5, Section 2, Regulation XII 1833, are ap plicable to pauper as well as to other cases Western Court, 15th September, Calcutta Court, 22d October A question having been referred by the Judge of Allahabad, whether it was intended by Clause 4, Section 5, Regulation VI of 1823, to be ruled that the highest amount of penalty including interest on the sum advanced awardable against a contractor, is not to exceed three times the sum advanced, or whether the penalty Inay be to the amount of three times the sum advanced and of any interest that may have accrued upon that sum of the time of the suit being decided ? It was held that the meaning of the enactment is, that interest is included in the “three times the sum advanced " Western Court, 24th September, Calcutta Court, 22d October, The estate of a Lunatic being restricted to personal property, there is no law which authorizes the intervention of the Civil Courts Western Court, 15th October, Calcutta Court, 5th November ജ A sues B, having paid the stamp duty and his Wakeel's fees -pending the trial, B takes out execution of a decree, and sells A's landed property After decision of the suit, A appeals to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, and the ease us remanded for re-trial to amend the plaint, in consequence of which amendment a higher stamp would be required, and the amount of Wakeel's fees &c considerably enhanced, A's property having been sold in satisfaction of the defendant's decree, A pleads that he is a pauper, and, therefore, unable to pay for the additoual stomp required to fulfil the orders of the Court. The Principal Sudder Ameen, holding that a party cannot be admitted a pauper in the middle of the suit not having been one at the commencement, strikes the case off the file on default. A summary appeal is preferred to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, and the question is, whether A should have been allowed to carry on his sut as a pauper, af. ter due enquiry made on that point, or should have been non-suited and allowed to institute a suut áe vov» £or the wholæ &laum, [Government Gazette, 29th Merok, 1842.]
