The plaintiff claimed damages against the State for his unlawful detention. On an application for an adjournment before a judge in chambers the judge granted the adjournment and ordered that the pleadings be amended to omit claims which were not sustainable under the provisions or Article 29(8) of the Constitution then in force. The plaintiff's advocates wrote to the judge informing him that the pleadings would not be amended as ordered because another judge had entertained a suit whose pleadings had been couched in a similar manner and that the plaintiff in that case had been awarded damages. It was intimated in the letter that, if the judge disagreed, the advocates intended to appeal to the Supreme Court. The learned judge then made the order dismissing the action which is the subject of this appeal.
Held:
(i) The order to dismiss the whole action, again without calling upon counsel to argue the matter, was irregular and should not have been made, because, apart from the amendment ordered, there were still claims unaffected by Article 29(8).
