Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Satyanarayana Rao, Mr. Justice Subba Rao and Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastri,JJ.
V. Ramamirtham, Sole Proprietor, Glorious Pictures
Versus
Rama Film Service
C.S.No.303 of 1947.
Decided On : 27 April 1950
The Madras High Court answered two questions referred to it by Mack, J., regarding the applicability of section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code to Chartered High Courts and the competency of the City Civil Court to try or dispose of suits filed in the High Court below Rs.10,000 in value which were instituted prior to the enhancement of its jurisdiction from Rs.8,000 to Rs.10,000.
Fact of the Case:
The reference was occasioned as Mack, J., was of opinion that an earlier decision of Panchapagesa Sastri, J., in Mahomed Yusuf v. Khadir Badsha Sahib1, which held that the High Court had no power under section 16(2) of the Madras City Civil Court Act (VII of 1892) to transfer to the City Civil Court, suits instituted in the High Court on its original side before the date of the notification G.O.No.M.S.4175, Home, dated nth November, 1948, required reconsideration.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the High Courts exercising ordinary original jurisdiction, when there is a conflict between the original jurisdiction of the High Court and City Civil Court constituted under the Madras City Civil Court Act. 2. The suits instituted before 1st December, 1948 and of the value below Rs.10,000 can be transferred to the City Civil Court and that the City Civil Court is competent to try such suits when so transferred.
Issues: 1. Whether section 15, Civil Procedure Code, governs Chartered High Courts, and whether in view of it all suits below Rs.10,000 in value should not be instituted direct in the City Civil Court; 2. Whether the City Civil Court is competent to try or dispose of suits filed in the High Court below Rs.10,000 in value which were instituted prior to the enhancement of its jurisdiction from Rs.8,000 to Rs.10,000; if so, can such transfers be legally made under either section 16, proviso (2), Madras City Civil Court Act or under section 24(1), Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the High Courts exercising ordinary original jurisdiction, when there is a conflict between the original jurisdiction of the High Court and City Civil Court constituted under the Madras City Civil Court Act. This is because: a) The scheme of the entire group of sections relating to place of suing cannot be made applicable when a self-contained provision relating to place of suing was laid down in clause 12 of the Letters Patent. b) The practice has also been so far not to apply section 15 to the original jurisdiction of the High Court. c) Proviso (1) to section 16, Madras City Civil Court Act, is clearly inconsistent with section 15 and does not make it obligatory on the plaintiff to choose the lowest Court of pecuniary jurisdiction to institute a suit when the conflict is between the City Civil Court and the High Court. d) The gradation contemplated by section 15 is only the gradation or subordination of Courts provided in section 3 of the Code. 2. The suits instituted before 1st December, 1948 and of the value below Rs.10,000 can be transferred to the City Civil Court and that the City Civil Court is competent to try such suits when so transferred. This is because: a) The delegation under section 3-A of the Act is perfectly valid. b) The expression “suit or proceeding of a civil nature arising within the City of Madras” is used to denote the class of suits over which the jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of was intended to be conferred upon the City Civil Court by the Legislature. c) The very institution of the suit in a Court under a procedure which recognises a power of transfer makes the vested right subject to the power of transfer. d) The third proviso to section 16 provides for the levy of the court-fees under the Court-Fees Act after giving credit to fee already paid where a proceeding is transferred to the City Civil Court.
Final Decision: 1. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the High Courts exercising ordinary original jurisdiction, when there is a conflict between the original jurisdiction of the High Court and City Civil Court constituted under the Madras City Civil Court Act. 2. The suits instituted before 1st December, 1948 and of the value below Rs.10,000 can be transferred to the City Civil Court and that the City Civil Court is competent to try such suits when so transferred.
"1. Whether section 15, Civil Procedure Code, governs Chartered High Courts, and whether in view of it all suits below Rs.10,000 in value should not be instituted direct in the City Civil Court;
2. Whether the City Civil Court is competent to try or dispose of suits filed in the High Court below Rs.10,000 in value which were instituted prior to the enhancement of its jurisdiction from Rs.8,000 to Rs.10,000; if so, can such transfers be legally made under either section 16, proviso (2), Madras City Civil Court Act or under section 24(1), Civil Procedure Code."
This reference was occasioned as Mack, J., was of opinion that an earlier decision of Panchapagesa Sastri, J., in Mahomed Yusuf v. Khadir Badsha Sahib1, which held that the High Court had no power under section 16(2) of the Madras City Civil Court Act (VII of 1892) to transfer to the City Civil Court, suits instituted in the High Court on its original side before the date of the notification G.O. No.M.S.4175, Home, dated nth November, 1948, required reconsideration. In order to better appreciate the scope of the questions raised in the reference and the contentions urged before us, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant provisions that have a bearing on the questions.
The original jurisdiction of the High Court is derived under clause 12 of the Letters Patent which empowered the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction to
"receive, try and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immoveable property, such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the defendant St the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for; does not exceed one hundred rupees."
The High Court, therefore, has practically unlimited original jurisdiction except that if the debt or damage or the value of the property does not exceed Rs.100 and the case is one which falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Madras, the High Court in its original jurisdiction cannot try such a suit.
In 1882, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, (IV of 1882) was passed to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Court of Small Causes established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. In each of the Presidency towns, a Court of Small Causes was established by that Act subject to the superintendence of the High Court. The local limit of the jurisdiction of the Small Clause Court is co-extensive with the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. A Small Cause Court was empowered to try all suits of a civil nature subject to the exceptions contained in section 19 of the Act if the amount or value of the subject-matter did not exceed Rs.2,000 and further subject to the conditions regarding the cause of action and the residence of the defendants contained in clauses (a) to (c) of section 18. Section 21 of the Act, however, gave an option to a plaintiff when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeded Rs.1,000 to institute the suit either in the High Court on its original side or in the Small Cause Court. In 1892 the Madras City Civil Court Act (VII of 1892) was passed by the Legislature which empowered the Local Government by notification in the Official Gazette to establish a Court, to be called the Madras City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dis
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
