Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. The short question involved in the present appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that the recording of the name of the Respondent No.1 as the holder of 2,42,430 shares in the books and registers of the Respondent No.2 company is illegal, fraudulent, null and void is maintainable before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The City Civil Court was of the view that such a suit seeking the aforesaid declaration besides several other reliefs including that of a permanent injunction is not maintainable before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The Court has held that it had no jurisdiction to try such a suit in view of the provisions of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 and the rules framed thereunder.

2. Hemendra Prasad Barooah was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 company till he expired. The appellant, his youngest daughter, holds 38% of the paid up capital of the Respondent No.2 company and claims to be the single largest shareholder. After the appellant's father's death, she found from a declaration made by the company that 2,42,430 shares originally standing in the name of her father were transferred to the