§ 11. Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether the appellate bench in the Midnapur ease found the Advocate General's objection that there was no cause of action was good, and that the suit, which cost the taxpayers upwards of £10,000 and occupied the Calcutta High Court, owing, as the appellate bench found, to the admission by Mr. Justice Fletcher of irrelevant matter, 192 working days, should have been dismissed in limine; and, if so, what steps the Secretary of State proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such an incident?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker)The Advocate General did not contend, nor 1002 did the Appellate Court hold, that there was no cause of action; nor did the Appellate Court find that the suit should have been dismissed in limine on the ground that there was no cause of action.
§ Sir J. D. REESHas the hon. Gentleman read the judgment?
§ Mr. BAKERYes, Sir, I have. In the Court of Appeal two judges held that there were causes of action, but that they were barred by the Statute of Limitations.
§ Sir J. D. REESDoes the Secretary of State propose to take any action in view of the very serious incidents which have resulted?
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs it not the case this suit was decided on a mere question of procedure not touching the merits at all?