( 1 ) A common question of law arises in all these, tweny-two revision petitions. These revision petitions are riled against rejecion of plaints in different suits filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Munsiff, Hassan. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed those suits contending that the disciplinary enquiries poposed to be held by the Divisional Controller, Hassan, were beyond the pqwers of the said Divl. Controller, and, hence, he could not, in law, proceed to hold disciplinary enquiries against them and pass orders of dismissal or such other orders, and, therefore, the Court should declare, that the action that was taken and further proposed to, be taken by the divl. Controller, was beyond his powers and issue an injunction restraining him from proceeding further into the, proposed departmental enquiries against the petitioner-plaintiffs.

( 2 ) IT was contended on behalf of the Divi. Contoller that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as the matter was governed by the, provisions of the industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the suits were not maintainable and they were to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff inquired into this contention in regard to jurisdiction and concluded by placing reliance on a decision of this High Court in 1968 (2) Mysore Law Journal 194, 1968, (2) Mys. L. J. 194, that the jurisdiction of the Civil court was barred by law. He, therefore, rejected the plaints by applying the provisions of Or. 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC (to be hereinafter referred to as the Code ). These are the. orders challenged in these revision petitions.

( 4 ) SRI K. S. Puttaswamy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent in all these matters, raised an objection that the revision petitions are incompetent in view of the specific provisions of S. 115 of the code and the rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree and such a decree is appealable under S. 96 of the Code and under S. 20 of the Karnataka civil Courts Act, 1864 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He urged that the Court of the, Civil Judge was the appellate, Co,urt and appeals against such decrees ought to have been filed before that Court. He pointed qut that this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its powers under S. 115 of the Code under these circumstances. Sri P. Rangaswamy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, relied very heavily on the order dt. 14-7-1972 passed by this court in CRP No. 950 of 1972. He contended that this order was passed by Datar, J. in regard to similar set of facts and circumstances, and pointed out that by that order Datar, J. had directed the suit to be disposed of by the Munsiff concerned and that showed that this Court had held that the Munsiff had jurisdiction to try the suit. He nextly urged that a similar order is to be passed in the petitions on hand.

( 5 ) THE order passed by Datar, J. in CRP. No. 9 50/72 (2), reads as follows:" At the hearing of this revision petition the learned Advocate for the respondent stated that until the disposal of O. S. No. 461 of 1971 on the file of the II Addl. I Munsiff of Mysore, the Dy. General Manager, Bangalore, crp. 950/72. will withhold further action and will not pass any further order in the matter. In view of this undertaking given to this Court, it is unnecessary to pass any interim order in O. S. 461 of 1971. Haying regard to, the nature of the dispute arising in the same, 1 direct the learned II Add. I Munsiff, mysore, to dispose of O. S. 461/71 on his file not later that the 1st of October 1972. A copy of this order should be sent to the Court below within a, week from this date. "

( 6 ) IT is clear that Datar, J. did not at all enter into the question whether the Munsiff had jurisdiction or not and whether the revision petition was maintainable or not. He simply acted on the submission made by the counsel for the respondent that until O. S. 461 of 1971 was disposed, further action proposed by the Deputy General Manager (Divl. Controller) i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document