Jagannath Vasudev Pundit Maharaj v. H.H. The Maharaja Of Kolhapur

1. This is a reference under section 12 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act, the question having been referred by the Government of India through the Government of Bombay for the decision of the High Court.

2. The last paragraph in section 12 says “the costs (if any) consequent on any such reference shall be dealt with as the High Court in each case directs.”

3. There are 3 parties to the Reference, and the third party has made an application to this Court that an order should be made that the 1st and 2nd parties should deposit in Court a sufficient amount of money to cover the costs of the applicant consequent on the hearing of the reference. The ground for the application is that the 1st and 2nd parties are residing outside British India; that the 1st party is a Ruling Chief, and not amanable to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Courts in British India, and the 2nd party does not hold any property in British India. The application ts made under Order 25, rule 1 of the CPC; and it is contended for the applicant that these proceedings are in the nature of a suit. We do not think that Order 25, rule 1 of the CPC applies as there is no suit before the Court and the applicant cannot derive any benefit from section 141 of the code as these are not proceedings within the meaning of the word in that section. The word ‘proceedings’ in that section include only original matters in the nature of suits such as proceedings in probate, guardianship and so forth, and it was held in Thahur Pershad v. Sheikh Fakirullah (1) that section did not apply to proceedings in execution. The rule, therefore, will be discharged with costs.

4. Rule discharged.