Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a supplier of goods, filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in 1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State plus damages for refusal to take delivery of other goods. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951, joining the ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary, and an employee as defendants on the plea that the latter two acted as agents. During the pendency of the suit, Section 87-B was introduced into the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1951, making the provisions of Section 86 applicable to Rulers of former Indian States. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent without the consent of the Central Government as required by Section 87-B. The Subordinate Judge adjourned the hearing for four months to enable the appellant to obtain consent; the appellant applied to the Central Government but consent was refused. The appellant's revision to the Judicial Commissioner challenging the validity of Section 87-B under Article 14 was rejected. The suit was subsequently dismissed against all defendants: against the ex-Ruler for want of Central Government consent and against the other defendants on the ground that they were protected by Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, sub-section (3) being held inapplicable because a suit could be filed against the ex-Ruler with consent. The appellant's appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer was dismissed. On a certificate granted by the High Court of Rajasthan under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The two main legal issues were whether Section 87-B violated Article 14 of the Constitution and whether Section 87-B applied to a suit that was pending when the section was enacted. The appellant contended that Section 87-B discriminated in favour of ex-Rulers and was void under Article 14, and alternatively that even if valid, it could not apply to pending suits because the right to continue a suit is a substantive right not to be taken away except by a law made applicable to pending actions expressly or by necessary intendment. The appellant also argued that the respondent agent was liable under Section 230(3) of the Indian Contract Act. The respondents argued that the suit was incompetent without the Central Government's consent and that the agents were not personally liable. The Supreme Court held that Section 87-B did not violate Article 14 because ex-Rulers of former Indian States formed a distinct class historically recognised by covenants and Article 362 of the Constitution; the classification was based on a real and substantial distinction bearing a just relation to the object of the legislation. The Court further held that Section 87-B applied to pending suits because the word 'sued' in Section 86(1) covers the entire proceedings in an action, including continuation, and there was no saving in favour of pending actions. The Court applied the decision in K.C. Mukherjee v. Mst. Rath Ratan Kuer. Consequently, the consent of the Central Government was necessary for the continuation of the suit against the ex-Ruler, and since such consent had been refused, the suit against the ex-Ruler was rightly dismissed. The appeal was dismissed and the decree of the courts below confirmed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Article 14, Constitution of India - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 87-B - Ex-Rulers of former Indian States form a distinct class based on historical covenants and Article 362; classification is reasonable and bears just relation to object; provision not void (Paras not numbered). B) Civil Procedure - Suits Against Rulers of Former Indian States - Consent of Central Government - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 86 and 87-B - Word 'sued' covers entire proceedings including continuation; consent needed for pending suits; no saving for pending actions; K.C. Mukherjee v. Mst. Rath Ratan Kuer applied (Paras not numbered).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution; whether Section 87-B applies to a pending suit and requires consent of the Central Government for its continuation; whether the suit against the ex-Ruler is maintainable without such consent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decree of the courts below. It held that Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution because ex-Rulers formed a distinct class based on historical covenants and Article 362, and the classification was reasonable and just. It further held that Section 87-B applied to pending suits; the word 'sued' in Section 86(1) covered the entire proceedings in an action, including continuation, so consent of the Central Government was necessary for the continuation of the suit against the ex-Ruler. Since such consent was refused, the suit against the ex-Ruler was incompetent and rightly dismissed. The judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer was confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 87-B of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 does not violate Article 14 of Constitution of India
- ex-Rulers form distinct class based on historical covenants and Article 362
- consent of Central Government required for filing and continuation of suit against ex-Rulers
- word 'sued' in Section 86 covers entire proceedings including continuation
- no saving for pending suits
- K.C. Mukherjee v. Mst. Rath Ratan Kuer applied
