Modi, J.—This is a revision by the petitioners Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman against an order of the Munsiff City Jodhpur dated the 15th September, 1958, in a proceeding under sec. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of the words "a civil court of competent jurisdiction" occurring in that section.

2. Only a few facts need be mentioned to bring out the controversy which has arisen in this case. The petitioners have instituted an application under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. against the opposite parties with respect to a certain plot of open land lying outside the Siwanchi gate in the city of Jodhpur. This application was filed in the court of the City Magistrate Jodhpur (No. I). As the learned Magistrate did not find himself in a position to decide as to which of the contending parties was in possession of the land in dispute at the date of the preliminary order, he referred the question of possession for determination to the Munsiff, Jodhpur City, under sub-sec.(l) of sec. 146. It appears that after some evidence was recorded before the Munsiff, an objection was raised before him that as the valuation of the land was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff, which is admittedly limited to a sum of Rs. 2000/-, his was not the court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question of possession raised in this case. The learned Munsiff by his order dated the 15th September, 1958, repelled this objection and held that the word "jurisdiction" as used in the phrase "a civil court of competent jurisdiction" was used in the sense of territorial jurisdiction only. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have come up in the present revision.

3. It is in these circumstances that the question of the proper interpretation of the phrase "a civil court of competent jurisdiction" as used in Sec. 146(1) Cr.P.C. arises in this case.

4. It is strenuously contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that only that civil court should be considered to be a court of competent jurisdiction which would have not merely the territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter of possession but which would also have the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to do so. It was further contended in the same connection that the land which was the subject-matter of dispute in these proceedings measured over a lac of square feet and that its value was far beyond Rs. 2000/- which was the maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiffs Court. Reference was also made in this connection to Sec. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that save in so far as otherwise expressly provided, nothing contained in the Code shall operate to give any court jurisdiction over the suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction. Learned counsel also places reliance on Sec. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. The contention of learned counsel is that as a result of the combined force of all the provisions referred to above a civil court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of Sec. 146 Cr.P.C. would and should be the court which has not merely the territorial competence to take cognizance of the matter but which is also competent so to do from the viewpoint of its pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. The aforesaid argument looks somewhat attractive on the face of it but on a careful and close consideration of the whole matter, I find myself unable to accede to it. I have come to the conclusion to which I have mainly as a result of the policy and the object underlying the provisions contained in sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and the nature of the proceeding referred to the civil court under sec. 146. The law is indeed well-settled, and it has been stated plainly in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document