( 34 )
June, 20J910Grenibk J.
Mohideen v.Qnanapra•
of it, should be contested and determined in the regular way. TheIndian authorities to which I was referred by respondents' counseldo not help me. According to the judgment of Rampini andWilkins JJ., the Judges of the High Court of Calcutta and Allaha-bad do not appear to have agreed as to whether when a suit has oncebeen registered the plaint could be rejected. I do not know whatthe process Of registration in the Indian Courts is, or whethersummons had or had not been issued and served in the case cited.The local cases of Fernando v. Soyza' and Ratwatte v Owen1 arefairly in point.
To me it seems only reasonable that where a plaint which is notdefective ex facie is presented and accepted, and summons is dulyserved on the defendants, the Court loses its control over the docu-ment, and should leave it to the defendants to raise any questionsas to its legal sufficiency to support the intended action. If aftersummons has been served, and the defendants have been put to theexpense of retaining and instructing pleaders, the Court is able tomake order rejecting a plaint, then it necessarily follows that, as theCourt cannot in the circumstances make any order as to costs, thedefendants will, firstly, by the action of the plaintiff in presenting abad plaint, and secondly, by the action of the Court in acceptingit and ordering summons, be absolutely without remedy in thematter of costs and expenses incurred by him. And that is whathas actually happened in this case. The Court, has rejected theplaint and has given no costs, for the very good reason that it hadno power to do so. In my opinion the order appealed from iswrong and must be set aside, and the case sent back for the defend-ants to contest the plaintiff’s action in the regular way, by filinganswer and raising proper issues upon the pleadings. There willbe no costs in this Court. The costs in the Court below will abidethe final event.
Appeal allowed.
{isnc) a A l. x. 40.
*(]&9G) 2 Af. L. X. Nt.