The judgment established the principle that a court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit during vacation is governed by specific legal provisions and constitutional provisions, and the absence of jurisdiction renders any orders passed as void.

( 1 ) THE respondent (hereinafter referred to as'the plaintiff') had filed a suit against petitioners 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') during Dasara vacation of 1982 seeking a declaration that the letter dt. 2-10 1982 issued by the President mrs. T. N. K. Nayar of Rama Sakti Mission, Mangalore, is illegal and invalid in law, and for a declaration that the notice dt. 25 10 1982 issued by the joint secretary was also illegal and invalid in law, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from convening the meeting of the Governing Body on 2-11 1982 or on any other date, and for a permanent injunction restraining them from bringing back the discredited Ex. President Sri K. V. S. Pai as President of the Mission etc.

( 2 ) THE City Civil Court situate at bangalore and all the other Civil Courts in the mofussil places in this State, were closed during Dasara vacation. It is also undisputed that no vacation Judge had been appointed during Dasara vacation for the City Civil Court at Bangalore and the subordinate Civil Courts in the State during the said vacation.

( 3 ) THE office of this Court raised an objection that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the s,uit during Dasara vacation. The objections raised by the office were put up before me. This Court made an order on 29 10-1982 thus :-"the office has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the suit. All the Civil Courts are now closed for vacation. Whether this Court would get jurisdiction to entertain matters of this nature on account of the subordinate Courts being closed, is a matter that will have to be decided once for all. It requires a good deal of time to decide the point in question. The matter appears to be of some urgent nature. Therefore, till the said point is decided, it is ordered ad interim that the calling of the meeting on 2-11-1982 is stayed".

( 4 ) NOW the defendants have filed IA no. 2 under Or 39, R. 4 of the CPC requesting to vacate the stay alleging that this Court is not a Court of original jurisdiction and it could not entertain a suit of the present civil nature and thus it could not pass the ad-interim order in question. The issue of the ad interim order of stay is also attacked by the defendants on various other grounds with which 1 am not concerned with at this stags. The argument now centers round the point as to whether this Court is a Court of originaj civil jurisdiction and whether it could entertain a suit of the present nature during dasara vacation or winter vacation.

( 5 ) A similar point arose in Raja Soap factory v. S. P. Shantharaj (1 ). It was a case which was filed in this Court during the summer vacation under the Trade and merchandise Marks Act. The Supreme court held that this Court was not a Court of original jurisdiction at all and it could not entertain a suit of original jurisdiction during vacation. It has been held by the supreme Court in para 4 thus : -"exercise of jurisdiction by the High court of Mysore is governed by Mysore act 5 of 1962. The Act is purely a regulatory Act enacted for regulating the business and exercise of the powers of the High Court in relation to the administration of justice : it does not purport to confer upon the High Court any jurisdiction original or appellate. It is true that by S. 12 of the Mysore High court Act 1 of 1884 enacted by the maharaja of Mysore to amend the constitution of the High Court of Mysore, and to provide for the administration of justice by that Court, the Government of mysore was authorised by notification to invest the High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a District court in all suits of a civil nature exercisabie within such local limits as the government may from time to lime declare and appoint in that behalf. But 5. 12 of the Mysore Act of 1884 has been repealed by S. 14 of Mysore Act 5 of 1952".

( 6 ) THE Supreme Court also heid that this. Court is primarily a Court exercisi