Bombay High Court
Bomanji Jamsetji Mistri And Bai ... vs Nusserwanji Rustomji Mistri on 27 November, 1902
Equivalent citations: (1904)ILR 27BOM65
JUDGMENT Russel, J.
1. I must make the summons absolute. Looking at the form of the plaint, I think, the Advocate General's argument is well founded, that the first plaintiff is trying to make money out of his daughter's engagement. It appears to me that the first plaintiff is added merely to get over the difficulty as to security, if possible. The present case is clearly: distinguishable, from Bai Porebai v. Devji Meghji (1898) 23 Bom. 100 and falls within the dictum of Bowen, L.J., in Cowell v. Taylor (1885) 31 ch. D. at p. 38.
2. The section vests a discretion in me, and, in my opinion, I must exercise it in favour of the defendant. I therefore order that the summons be made absolute. Plaintiff to deposit Rs. 400 as security within two months. In default, suit to be dismissed with costs. If the deposit be made, costs to be costs in the cause.