who is babur friend in his court
Answers
Answer:
n this cage after I delivered my judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit the learned Counsel on behalf of the defendants asked that the next friend should be ordered to pay the costs of the suit and stated that that was the ordinary rule. Mr. Desai, on the other hand, contended that the suit being for the benefit of the minor and there being nothing to show that it was unnecessary or improper, there was no reason to make the next friend liable for the costs of the suit. He further said that as he had no notice of this application he was not prepared to argue the point fully. As it seemed tome that the question involved was of considerable importance and as Counsel stated there was no direct decision bearing on the point, I allowed the case to stand over to the following Friday so that I should have the benefit of a fuller argument on the question. Accordingly, the question has been argued fully and a number of decisions, mainly of the English Courts, have been cited at the bar, and I may at once say that I am much obliged to the learned Counsel for their arguments. The question that I have to determine is, whether, where a suit is brought by a minor by his next friend and the suit is dismissed, the next friend should ordinarily be directed to pay the costs of the suit, or whether the next friend should be ordered to pay the costs only if the Court holds that the suit was not a proper suit or was unnecessary and not for the benefit of the minor. In this case it is conceded by Mr. Vakil on behalf of the defendants that the suit was for the benefit of the minor and that he is not in a position to say that the suit was unnecessary or was conducted improperly.
2. The old practice in England, if the infant was unsuccessful, was either to make the next friend personally liable for the costs, or to dismiss his action with costs generally without specifying who should pay such costs; and where the action was dismissed with costs, generally without anything more, execution for costs always issued against the next friend, and this practice is evident from Turner v. Turner (1726) 2 Strange 708