The Indian Decisions (New Series) Being a Re-Print of All the Decisions of the Privy Council on Appeals from India and of the Various High Courts and Other Superior Courts in India Reported Both in the Official and Non-Official Reports from 1875 Calcutta (1895) I.L.R. 22 Calcutta

" The learned Munsif, without taking any evidence of the truth or otherwise of the plaintiff's statements, admitted the review on the second ground, only observing : However as the plaintiff could not know before the 14th September 1891 whether the defendant would consent to swear specially, and as the plaintiff was not particularly ordered to produce his witnesses, I think that for the ends of ju [...] " Therefore he contends, as the present case does not come within the provisos, and the Munsif held there was sufficient ground for granting the review, and as the review was not granted in contravention of s. 626, the defendant has no right of appeal by s. 629, and in support of his contention he cites the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Co. [...] The Subordinate Judge on appeal found that Anoragi Koer had been in the former suit the certificated guardian of the plaintiffs ; but he held that the causes of action in the two suits were not identical, and that the former suit had miscarried owing to the gross want of care and diligence on the part of Anoragi Koer, which amounted to misconduct on her part, and referring to Grish Chunder Mookerj [...] It is clear, both from the document alluded to above as well as from the evi- dence of the plaintiffs which stands wholly unrebutted, that the inducement which led the plaintiff to take upon himself the responsibility of the office of executor was the promise on the part of the defendant by that perwana to grant him a monthly sum of Rs. [...] below ought to have held that the defendant was not legally liable to pay the sum claimed, and that the claim of the plaintiff was il- legal and prohibited under s. 56, Act II of 1874 ; that the Court be- low ought to have held that there was no valid contract under the sunnud relied upon by the plaintiff, and the defendant was not person- ally liable to the plaintiff under the sunnud ; and that u