1983 Supreme(Cal) 117

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chittatosh Mookerjee, Amitava Dutta, JJ.
Tarapada Shome & Anr. - Petitioner
Versus
Parbati Charan Sarkar – Opposite Party
AND
Mohammad Jebbas Ali & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
Rahima Bibi - Opposite Party
AND
Mainuddin Mondal - Petitioner
Versus
Samser Seikh & Anr. - Opposite Party
Civil Rule Nos. 2654, 3346 and 3937 of 1980
Decided On : April 29, 1983

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.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 8(1), 9(6) - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - JURISDICTION OF MUNSIF AND DISTRICT JUDGE - POWER TO ALLOW AMENDMENT AFFECTING JURISDICTION - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

In these three Revisional Applications, the principal point for determination was whether the Munsif and the District Judge respectively, 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, have 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:

The Court held that 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 "persona designata". The Court further held that 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.

Issues: 1. Whether the Munsif and the District Judge have jurisdiction to allow amendment of an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act by way of insertion of a prayer for pre-emption under section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act? 2. Whether the Court can allow an amendment of the pleading which takes the case out of its jurisdiction under sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that 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. The Court relied on the following principles: * 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 "persona designata". * The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 has not selected the Munsif and the learned District Judge to act in their private capacities and as individuals. * The Munsif and the District Judge as judicial officers i. e. members of in ascertained class, entertain and disposed of the pre-emption proceedings under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (see judgment of Hidayatullah, J. in the case of (1) Central Talkies Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 606(609) para 9. The sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 have provided for adjudication of preemption proceedings by constituted Courts, i.e. existing Courts and not by Courts created by the special law (West Bengal Land Reforms Act). * The Court of the District Judge and the Court of the Munsif are among the four classes of Civil Courts speceified in section 3 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. * The State Government by Notification made under section 13(1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 fixes and alters local limits of jurisdiction of Civil Courts. 2. The Court held that the Court can allow an amendment of the pleading which takes the case out of its jurisdiction under sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The Court relied on the following principles: * The Court has a large measure of discretion in the matter of allowing amendments and Court's such power is liberally exercised. * On the question of amendment of pleadings we ought to adopt a procedure which would ensure proper administration of justice and at the same time shorten rather than delay fair disposal of the case. * In case, upon the pleadings originally made, the Court has competence to try the cause, the said Court ought to consider the application for amendment of the plaint even when proposed amendment might affect Court's jurisdiction to further try the suit.

Final Decision: 1. Civil Rule No. 2654 of 1980 was allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was set aside. The case was remitted back to the learned Munsif for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in accordance with the directions and observations made in the judgment. 2. Civil Rule No. 3346 of 1980 was upheld and the case was remitted back to 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.