1983 Supreme(Cal) 116

High Court Of Calcutta
CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, AMITABHA DUTTA
MOHD.JEBBAS ALI - Appellant
Versus
RAHIMA BIBI - Respondent
C. R.  3937  Of  1980
Decided On : 04/29/1983

The Munsif and the District Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, respectively, function as courts and not as "personal designate".

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 8(1), 9(6) - AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION - JURISDICTION OF MUNSIF AND DISTRICT JUDGE - PROCEDURE - POWER TO ALLOW AMENDMENT AFFECTING JURISDICTION - LIMITATION - PRE-EMPTION RIGHT - AGRICULTURAL LAND - DEBA LAND - AMENDMENT OF PLEADING - WEST BENGAL NON-AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT, SECTION 24.

Fact of the Case:

In three Revisional Applications, the main issue was whether the Munsif and the District Judge, while entertaining an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 or an appeal under Section 9(6) of the said Act, respectively, had jurisdiction to allow amendment of the application under Section 8(1) of the Act by way of insertion of a prayer for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Munsif and the District Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, respectively, function as courts and not as "personal designate". 2. The Munsifs and the District Judges have been vested with jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, and in deciding the proceedings under these sections, they are governed by ordinary rules of procedure applicable to suits and appeals. 3. The Munsif having territorial jurisdiction is competent to entertain a pre-emption application under Section 8(1) of the Act even when the amount of consideration for a transfer exceeds the extent of pecuniary limits fixed under Section 19 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. 4. The Munsif and the District Judge have inherent powers to allow amendment of pleadings on such terms as they might think just which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 5. In case an application under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is permitted to be amended by inserting the prayer for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, the Courts jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act would be no longer there. 6. The third view set out in the judgment, which states that when the claim as originally made is within the court's jurisdiction but if the said claim is amended, the court might have no further jurisdiction, the said court itself is competent to allow such amendment. Thereafter, it would decide whether the amended plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court, ought to be followed. 7. The Munsif and the District Judge have jurisdiction to allow amendments of applications under Section 8(1) of the said Act affecting jurisdiction of the said courts under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 8. The learned Subordinate Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him by law by rejecting the petitioner's amendment application. 9. The learned Munsif had acted within his jurisdiction and in accordance with law by allowing the amendment. 10. The learned Additional District Judge did not commit any error of jurisdiction by allowing the amendment application.

Issues: 1. Whether the Munsif and the District Judge have jurisdiction to allow amendment of an application under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by way of insertion of a prayer for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949? 2. Whether the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction is competent to entertain a pre-emption application under Section 8(1) of the Act even when the amount of consideration for a transfer exceeds the extent of pecuniary limits fixed under Section 19 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887? 3. Whether the Munsif and the District Judge have inherent powers to allow amendment of pleadings on such terms as they might think just which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties? 4. Whether in case an application under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is permitted to be amended by inserting the prayer for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, the Courts jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act would be no longer there?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Munsif and the District Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, respectively, function as courts and not as "personal designate". 2. The Munsifs and the District Judges have been vested with jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, and in deciding the proceedings under these sections, they are governed by ordinary rules of procedure applicable to suits and appeals. 3. The Munsif having territorial jurisdiction is competent to entertain a pre-emption application under Section 8(1) of the Act even when the amount of consideration for a transfer exceeds the extent of pecuniary limits fixed under Section 19 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. 4. The Munsif and the District Judge have inherent powers to allow amendment of pleadings on such terms as they might think just which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 5. In case an application under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is permitted to be amended by inserting the prayer for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, the Courts jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act would be no longer there. 6. The third view set out in the judgment, which states that when the claim as originally made is within the court's jurisdiction but if the said claim is amended, the court might have no further jurisdiction, the said court itself is competent to allow such amendment. Thereafter, it would decide whether the amended plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court, ought to be followed. 7. The Munsif and the District Judge have jurisdiction to allow amendments of applications under Section 8(1) of the said Act affecting jurisdiction of the said courts under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 8. The learned Subordinate Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him by law by rejecting the petitioner's amendment application. 9. The learned Munsif had acted within his jurisdiction and in accordance with law by allowing the amendment. 10. The learned Additional District Judge did not commit any error of jurisdiction by allowing the amendment application.

Final Decision: 1. Civil Rule No. 2654 of 1980 was made absolute, the orders of the learned Munsif as well as the order of the learned Subordinate Judge were set aside, and the case was remitted back to the learned Munsif's court with a direction to dispose of the amendment application and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. 2. Civil Rule No. 3346 of 1980 was upheld and the case was remitted back for disposal in accordance with law. 3. Civil Rule No. 3937 of 1980 was discharged and the case was remitted back to the lower appellate court with a direction to expeditiously dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.