9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and secondly it is argued that there is absolutely no legal evidence on which the decree can be sustained. 3. The plaintiff non-petitioner alleged in the plaint that he had entered into a contract with the Assistant Engineer, Engineering Cell (Fisheries)'. Government of Rajasthan. Jaipur, to supply two generators on hire for five davs from 28-5-69 onwards. But by his letter dated 28-5-69 received at about 5 p. m. marked Ex. 4, the Assistant Engineer cancelled the contract. The plaintiff's case is that on account of the said act of the Assistant Engineer, he was put to a loss of ₹ 500/- for which he filed the present suit in the Court of Small Causes. Jaipur City. The defendant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment in his official capacity or by a Court of Wards or by an officer of a Court of Wards in the execution of his office. 6. From the language of the Ordinance, it is clear that the act contemplated by this article is not a mere neglect Or omission of duty, such as any private individual may be guilty of, but it means some distinct act purporting to be done by a Government officer under the authority of his office and reasonably falling within the scope of such authority: and the plaintiff, to bring a case under this Article, must allege some particular act of a particular official which has given rise to the suit. In AIR 1970 Bom 307 (supra), it was held that a suit for compensation for loss or injury to goods entrusted to a Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the United Provinces and had deposited some money by way of security for the performance of the contract. The Inspector General of Prisons cancelled the acceptance of the tender and ordered forfeiture of the security money. The plaintiff sued in the Court of Small Causes for damages for the cancellation of the tender and for return of security amount. It was held that the suit was not maintainable in a Small Cause Court. Yorke J. observed that the very essence of the suit was a claim founded on the allegation that the Inspector General of Prisons was not entitled to accept or at any rate forfeit the security amount deposited under it and that the Provincial Government was liable for damages arising out of other consequences of that act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... official capacity. 11. There is another reason for coming to this conclusion and it is this that the breach of contract was not committed under cover of any alleged authority conferred upon the Assistant Engineer as Officer of the Government but was such an act as any private individual or a private company might have been held liable for. In this view of the matter, I hold that the suit is not excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. 12. The other point urged by the learned Deputy Government Advocate is of course more formidable. A perusal of the order sheets of the court below shows that neither there was any agreement between the parties to give evidence by affidavits nor was there any order permitting the Plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
