Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
T.V.Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
T.Koteswara Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 01-19-62
MADRAS HEREDITARY VILLAGE OFFICES ACT - SECTION 13(1) - REVISION PETITION - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - CIVIL COURT - SUBORDINATE COURT - REVISION POWERS - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - MERITS OF THE CASE - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, defendant in a suit filed under Section 13(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Act III of 1895), challenged the order of the District Collector, Kurnool, which set aside the dismissal of the suit for default and directed the Collector, Markapur, to proceed with the hearing of the suit on its merits. The petitioner contended that the Collector and the District Collector were not Civil Courts and, therefore, the High Court could not exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Collector and the District Collector exercising jurisdiction under Act III of 1895 were Civil Courts and subordinate to the High Court. The Court relied on previous decisions which had held that revenue courts dealing with civil matters were Civil Courts subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court also held that Section 21 of the Act, which barred Civil Courts from considering claims to succeed to certain offices, did not exclude the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 CPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector and the District Collector exercising jurisdiction under Act III of 1895 were Civil Courts and subordinate to the High Court? 2. Whether Section 21 of the Act excluded the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "Court" in Section 115 CPC includes all bodies or tribunals legally authorized to take evidence and make decisions on matters in contest between parties. 2. Revenue courts dealing with civil matters are Civil Courts subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. 3. Section 21 of the Act, which barred Civil Courts from considering claims to succeed to certain offices, did not exclude the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 CPC.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the District Collector's order was not vitiated by any of the defects mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 115 CPC.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the District Collector of Kurnool, dated 18/01/1959, in R. S. A. 1 of 1958 reversing the judgment and order of the Revenue Divisional Officers Court, Markapur, in R. P. No. 1 of 1958 on the file of the said Court.
( 2 ) THIS revision is preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts leading up to this revision may be briefly noticed. The petitioner herein is the defendant in Revenue Suit No. 5 of 1954 in the Court of the Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer) Markapur, and the respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. That suit was brought under Section 13 (1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Act III of 1895) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein he claimed his right to the office of Karnam of Papinepalli, Kambham Taluk, Kurnool District. After the appearance of the defendant, the suit was posted for hearing to 1-12-1957. As that date was not convenient for the plaintiff and as he was apparently 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 plaintiffs 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 hearing of the suit on its merits. The learned District Collector held that there was no satisfactory proof that the plaintiff was aware of the date to which the suit was adjourned for hearing viz. , 13-12-1957 or that the plaintiff had been informed of that date by the Collector. He further was of the view that although there was evidence that a letter of intimation of the adjourned date of hearing was posted to the plaintiff, there is nothing to show that it has actually been received by him. His accordingly held that there was sufficient cause for the absence of the plaintiff on 13-12-57, the date of the hearing of the suit and so holding, he set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and directed the Dy. Collector. Markupur i. e. , the Revenue Divisional Officer, to hear and dispose of the suit on its merits. It is this order of the District Collector. Kurnool, that it questioned before me in this revision petition.
( 4 ) AT the outset a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Eswara Prasad, the learned advocate for the respondent, viz. , that the revision petition does not tie; that Section 115 C. P. C. cannot be invoked in this case; that the Collector (R. D. O.) and the District Collector cannot be regarded as Civil Courts, and, at any rate, as Courts subordinate to the High Court, and that, therefore, this Courts powers under Section 115 C. P. C. cannot be made use of for purposes of interfering with the judgment and order of the District Collector. Kurnool in this case. Elaborate arguments were advanced on the preliminary objection. As already briefly noticed, this objection is based on the following grounds: (1) that neither the Revenue Divisional Officer i. e. , the Collector, Markapur, nor the District Collector, Kurnool const
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.