This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1879 Excerpt: ...Court to which the district in which the suit is brought "is subject, and the Sudder Court to which such application is "made, may, with the concurrence of the Sudder Court to which "the other district is subject, give authority to proceed with the "same." On the 29th of May 1873 the High Court of the Punjab, presumably not without having consulted the High Court of Allahabad, directed that "the plaiut should be returned to the plaintiff, "with instructions that he should present it to some Court in the "North-West Proviuces." Accordingly the plaintiff took the proceedings back to the Court of Meerut from which he had been originally driven, and on the 19th July 1873 an order of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut was made, "that the case he brought on the file, and numbered." Their Lordships think it must be assumed that this order was complied with, and that the plaint was brought upon the file, and was numbered. The first question which arises is, whether the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi that the plaintiff was a pauper can be imported into the suit when it found its way upon the file of the Court at Meerut, and that depends upon the construction to be giveu to clauses 11, 12 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Undoubtedly, when a suit is in the position in which the present suit stood in the Court at Delhi, it would be convenient and proper when an application had been made by the Judge of Delhi Court to the High Court of the Punjab, and that Court is required, before it acts, to consult the Judges of the High Court in the jurisdiction to which the plaint is to go, that those two Courts having consulted together, should have power to direct that the case should be transferred in its the...