The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 does not take away the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits against ex-owners of nationalised collieries, particularly for claims arising before the appointed day, i.e., May 1, 1973.

( 1 ) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, for a decree for Rs. 1,93,274. 10 p. for price of goods sold and delivered to the defendant.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case, in short, is that on October 3, 1972 it had sold and delivered to the defendant various electrical goods of the total value of Rupees 1,33,082. 50 p. On October 9, 1972, the plaintiff to secure payment of its dues drew a Hundi and/or sola of exchange upon the defendant directing the latter to pay within 45 days from date the said sum to the plaintiff's bankers and the defendant duly accepted the same. On due date, the instrument was dishonoured by non-payment and in spite of demands the defendant has failed and neglected to pay the plaintiff's dues.

( 3 ) THE defendant has filed its written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. It is contended further that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),

( 4 ) THE only issue raised and settled at the trial was -- Is the suit maintainable by reason of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act. 1973?

( 5 ) NO witness was called to depose at the trial. The parties by consent tendered the Hundi and/or sola of exchange dated October 9, 1972 and two invoices both dated October 5, 1972 collectively marked Exhibit 'a' and an order dated January 13, 1977 of the Assistant Commissioner of Payments under the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in Claim Case No. 325 of 1975, marked Exhibit 'b',

( 6 ) MR. Jayanta Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Hirak Mitra appearing for the defendant have both contended that this Court was competent to consider subsequent events and made submissions keeping in view the said order

( 7 ) IT transpires that subsequent to the filing of this suit, in or about 1975, a claim for Rs. 1,93,274. 10 p. was preferred by the plaintiff before the Commissioner for the price of the said goods, and also for Rs. 12,442. 50 p. on account of sales tax thereof. This claim was adjudicated upon, and by the said order dated January 13, 1977 the Commissioner admitted the plaintiff's entire claim of Rupees 2. 05. 716. 50 p. Under the said Act, the sum has now become payable by way of compensation out of funds in the hands of the Commissioner.

( 8 ) THE defendant's main contention in this suit has been that in view of the provisions of the said Act. a Code in itself all claims against the colliery owners could be made only before the Commissioner and this Court was not competent and had no jurisdiction to try and determine this suit. a. Mr. H. Mitra, learned counsel for the defendant, relied on Sections 20, 23 and 24 of the said Act which may be noted as hereunder. Section 20 of the said Act inter alia provides that: --"every person having a claim against the owner of a Coal Mine shall prefer such claim before the Commissioner within thirty days from the specified date. " section 23 of the said Act reads inter alia: --1. . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . 3. Every claimant who fails to file the proof of his claim within the time specified by the Commissioner shall be excluded from the disbursements made by the Commissioner. 4. The Commissioner shall after such investigation as may, in his opinion, be necessary and after giving the owner of the coal mine an opportunity of refuting the claim and after giving claimant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in writing, admit or reject the claim in whole or in part. 5. The Commissioner shall have the power to regulate his procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of his function? including the place or places at which he will hold his sittings and shall, for the purpose of making any investigation under this Act. have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:--