9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly not likely 10 be ready on that day, he appeared before the Dy. Collector, Markapur and applied by way of a petition for an adjournment of the suit to some date beyond 1-12-1957. The suit was accordingly adjourned by the Dy. Collector to 13-12-57 and on that date as the plaintiff had not appeared when, the suit was called, the same was dismissed for default of the plaintiff's appearance. 3. Coming to know of the dismissal of his fait for default, the plaintiff-respondent applied for restoration of the suit under Rule 38 of the Rules framed under the Act. This application was dismissed by the Collector on 31-3-1958 holding that the plaintiff must have been aware of the date of hearing, and that his absence, therefore, when the suit was called must have been wilful and as such he could not have sufficient cause to be absent. Against this judgment and order of Collector, Markapur, an appeal was filed before the District Collector, Kurnool, who is the appellate authority under Rule 38 of the Rules framed under the Act, The District Collector allowed the appeal, set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and directed the Collector, Markapur to proceed with the hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit . 5. It may be seen from the above that the section applies provided the following conditions are fulfilled: (1) There should be a decision in a case by a Court; (2) That Court should be subordinate to the High Court concerned; (3) No appeal could have been made to the High Court in the case; and (4) One or other of the requirements in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) should be shown to be present. 6. This directly takes us to the consideration of the question whether the Collector, before whom a suit was filed under Section 13(1) of the Act, and the District Collector to whom an appeal is preferred against the decision in that suit, could be regarded as Courts within the meaning of the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consolidate and amend the law relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature . There can be little doubt that in the present case the Sub-Collector and the District Collector were hearing and determining disputes of a Civil nature and we see no sufficient reason why the proceedings before them should not be regarded as 'civil proceedings' and their Courts as 'Civil Courts' for the purposes of Section 3. It is very difficult to suppose that the Legislature in enacting, us part of a consolidating Code, a provision dealing with the subordination of Courts in the hierarchy of Civil Courts in the country, could possibly have left out of account an important class of Courts dealing with class of Courts dealing with particular kinds of Civil Proceedings assigned to them by special or local laws. This conclusion is, we think supported by the decision of the Privy Council in ILR 9 Cal 295 (PC). We are of opinion that the expression 'Civil Courts' must receive the same meaning in Section 3 of the Present Code. The whole argument against this view of Section 3 has been based on Sections 4 and 5 corresponding to which there were no provisions in the Cod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swered the reference by saying that the revenue Courts of these provinces in those matters of procedure upon which the Rent Act is silent are governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code............In 1885, the Calcutta High Court in Adhirani Narain Kumari v. Maha-patro, ILR 12 Cal 50 followed the Allahabad decision. These decisions led to the introduction of Section 4-A (corresponding to the present Section 5) in the Code of 1882 by Act 8 of 1888, in order, evidently to make the position as enunciated by the Allahabad Full Bench clear by legislation, adopting the very language used by the learned Judges. So far, therefore, from Section 5 affording any ground for supposing that a general distinction between civil and revenue Courts is maintained in the Code, it strongly supports the view that the Code is applicable to revenue Courts also except, of course, where it is excluded by any special or local law or by any inconsistent provisions of such law or by notification by the provincial Government. It follows that the declaration of the relative subordination of 'Civil Courts' in Section 3 for the purposes of the Code must be taken to cover revenue Courts as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal created by Section 13(1) of the Act did in fact act without jurisdiction, then there would still be a right, in respect of Section 21, for the aggrieved person to come to this Court (High Court) if he could show that the special Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. The decision in this case proceeds on the footing that the judgments reached by the revenue Courts under Act III of 1895 in suits filed under Section 13(1) are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. 11. In Sriramarao v. Suryanarayanamurthi, Venkatarama Ayyar, J. had to consider the nature of the proceedings before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act and whether these bodies could be regarded as Courts subject to the revisional powers of the High Court. The learned Judge held in that case, that Courts which decide disputed rights between subjects or between a subject and the State would be Civil Courts as opposed to criminal Courts, where the State vindicates wrongs committed against the public, and that courts constituted for deciding purely civil questions between persons seeing their civil rights must be considered to be civil Courts, notwithstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, it must be made clear that Section 115 was merely dealing with the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and the expression 'subordinate to such High Court' must be read in that light. As it is a general section applicable to all High Courts and as the object of the Legislature is to give revisional jurisdiction to the High Court only in respect of Courts within its jurisdiction and not outside it, this purpose was achieved by the employment of the expression 'by any Court subordinate to such High Court'. It could not obviously have been the intention of the Legislature to recognise the existence of Courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court which are not subordinate to the High Court. It must be clearly understood that the High Court of a State exercising jurisdiction over the territory of the State is the highest court in that State and all other Courts exercising civil jurisdiction as contemplated by the Civil Procedure Code are subordinate to the High Court, and hence the employment of the expression 'any Court subordinate to such High Court' is not intended to refer to a special category of courts which alone can be regarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arathi Naidu v. Koteswararao, AIR 1924 Mad 561, wherein it was held that what the section contemplated is the exclusion of any appeal as such to the Civil Courts as distinct from the Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act. In the above case, which is a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, the question arose whether Section 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act excluded the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In that connection it was observed in that case: It is further argued that the fact that the decision of this Judge is, by Section 57 of the Act and by the rules, final, precludes any revision. There is really no authority adduced in support of that proposition and in my judgment it would be quite contrary to the whole object and intention of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure so to hold. That section only applies where there is no appeal. I know of no better way of directing that there shall be no appeal than by the Legislature stating that the decision of a particular Court shall be final. It is the ordinary mode of expression used for the purpose in much of the legislation in England on which this legislation is founded; and where the whole obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
