Case: Mohanlal Jain Vs. His Highness Maharaja Shri Sawai Man Singhji

2. The suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in the year 1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State, (including interest) and damages suffered by the appellant due to the refusal of the defendants to take delivery of some other goods similarly ordered. In addition to the ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary and one Mohabat Singh, an employee of the ex-Ruler, were also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had placed the orders as agents of the ex-Ruler. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent of the Central Government under S. 87B of theCode of Civil Procedurewas not obtained and asked that the suit be dismissed. The other defendants denied the claim and also their liability on various grounds, it may be mentioned the Military Secretary (second defendant) has since died and this appeal is now directed against the ex-Ruler and Mohabat Singh only3. The Subordinate Judge held that though the suit was filed prior to the enactment of S. 87B by S. 12 of theCode of Civil Procedure(Amendment) Act, 1951(II of 1951), it could not be continued against the ex-Ruler. He adjourned the hearing for four months to enable the appellant to obtain the necessary consent. The appellant applied to the Central Government for its consent, but it was refused. He also applied in revision to the Judicial Commissioner, contending that S. 87B of theCode of Civil Procedureoffended the equality clause in Art. 14 of the Constitution and was thus void, but the Judicial Commissioner rejected the contention. He also refused a certificate on the ground that there was no final order as required by Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution. The suit was subsequently dismissed against all the three defendants. In regard to the exRuler, it was held that no suit lay against him without the consent of the Central Government, and in regard to the remaining defendants, it was held that they were protected by S. 230 of the Indian Contract Act. Sub-section (3) of that section was held inapplicable, inasmuch as a suit could be filed against the ex-Ruler with the consent of the Central Government. The appellant appealed to the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, but the appeal was dismissed. He obtained a certificate, as stated above, and this appeal has been filed.

Reasoning:
It is easy to see that the ex-Rulers form a class and the special legislation is based upon historical considerations applicable to them as a class. The Princes who were, before integration, sovereign Rulers of Indian States, handed over, after the foundation of the Republic, their States to the Nation in return for an annual Privy Purse and the assurance that their personal rights, privileges and dignities would be respected. The Constitution itself declared that these rights, etc., would receive recognition. A law made as a result of these considerations must be treated as based on a proper classification of such Rulers, who had signed the agreement of the character described above. It is based upon a distinction which can be described as real and substantial, and it bears a just relation to the object sought to be attainedIn our opinion, the words personal rights and privileges" are sufficiently comprehensive to embrance an immunity of this character. It is, therefore, clear that the section cannot be challenged as discriminatory, because it arises from a classification based on historical factsHere, the matter can be resolved on the language of the enactment. The language employed is of sufficient width and certainty to include even ponding actions, and the contrary rule apolies, namely, that unless pending actions are saved from the operation of the new law, they must be taken to be affected. The word "sued", as we have shown, denotes not only the start but also the continuation of a civil action, and the prohibition, therefore, affects not only a suit instituted after the enactment of S. 87-B but one which, though instituted before its enactment, is pending. In out judgment, the present suit was incompetent against the first defendant, the exRuler of JaipurThe position of the Military Secretary (since dead) was on a different footing, but it is conceded that no cause of action against him survived, because the appeal has abated against him. Mohabat Singh, who is the third defendant, cannot be described as an agent of the ex-Ruler, because his connection with the orders placed was merely to sign the letters purporting to emanate from the Military Secretary. Those letters he signed "for the Military Secretary". He was not acting as the agent of the ex-Ruler but was performing the ministerial act of signing the letters on behalf of the military Secretary. This cannot be said to have constituted him an agent. The suit against him was, therefore, misconceived, whatever might have been said of the Military Secretary14. In our opinion, the dismissal of the suit was justified in the circumstances of the case.