Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4838
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
U. Ramachandran & Another
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government Law Department & Others
W.P.No.1643 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 22-12-2011
For the Petitioner - V. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 & R3 - V. Subbiah, Special Government Pleader, R2 -P.K. Rajagopal, Advocate.
The impugned notification was not decided in accordance with the resolution taken by the Full Court in its meetings held on 12.07.1993 and 19.07.1993 and is opposed to and in violation of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.S.Sankaranarayanans case.
Headnote:
realignment - jurisdiction of Munsif Courts - Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 - Section 11 - Circular No.1792 of 1879 - The High Courts Circular No.1792 of 1879 does not make it incumbent upon the District Judge to call for suggestions from the District Collector before effecting any change in the jurisdiction of Munsif Courts. No requirement for public hearing before ordering redistribution of areas to the Munsif Courts. The jurisdiction of Munsif Court is decided based on the Firka, which is adopted for all the Munsif Courts in the State. The impugned notification was not decided in accordance with the resolution taken by the Full Court in its meetings held on 12.07.1993 and 19.07.1993 and is opposed to and in violation of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.S.Sankaranarayanans case. Status-quo shall be maintained until the matter is decided by the Administrative Committee No.4.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the realignment of civil jurisdiction by detaching Mandapam Firka from the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram and attaching it under the jurisdiction of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram. The petitioners objected to the realignment based on revenue classification, lack of public hearing, and inconvenience to the litigant public.
Finding of the Court:
The High Courts Circular No.1792 of 1879 does not make it incumbent upon the District Judge to call for suggestions from the District Collector before effecting any change in the jurisdiction of Munsif Courts. No requirement for public hearing before ordering redistribution of areas to the Munsif Courts. The impugned notification was not decided in accordance with the resolution taken by the Full Court in its meetings held on 12.07.1993 and 19.07.1993 and is opposed to and in violation of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.S.Sankaranarayanans case. Status-quo shall be maintained until the matter is decided by the Administrative Committee No.4.
Issues: Whether the High Courts Circular No.1792 of 1879 contemplates calling for a report from the District Collector before realignment of jurisdiction of Munsif Courts. Whether a public hearing shall be held before realignment of jurisdiction of Munsif Courts. Whether the second respondent is correct in taking 'Firka' as the Unit for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Munsif Courts and whether the impugned notification could cause inconvenience to the litigant public. Whether the impugned notification was approved as per the scheme devised by the Full Court in its meeting held on 12.07.1993 and 19.07.1993.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Courts Circular No.1792 of 1879 does not make it incumbent upon the District Judge to call for suggestions from the District Collector before effecting any change in the jurisdiction of Munsif Courts. No requirement for public hearing before ordering redistribution of areas to the Munsif Courts. The jurisdiction of Munsif Court is decided based on the Firka, which is adopted for all the Munsif Courts in the State. The impugned notification was not decided in accordance with the resolution taken by the Full Court in its meetings held on 12.07.1993 and 19.07.1993 and is opposed to and in violation of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.S.Sankaranarayanans case.
Final Decision: The impugned notification is opposed to and in violation of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.S.Sankaranarayanans case. Status-quo shall be maintained until the matter is decided by the Administrative Committee No.4.
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings dated 17.06.2010 of the second respondent relating to realignment of civil jurisdiction, by detaching Mandapam Firka of Ramanathapuram Taluk, under the jurisdiction of District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram and attaching the same under the jurisdiction of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram and the publication of the aforesaid proceedings in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 07.07.2010.
2. The first petitioner is the President of Mandapam Union Presidents Association, a registered body consisting of President, Secretary and other Office Bearers of the Panchayat Units in Mandapam Union. The second petitioner is the Ramanathapuram Bar Association and the Advocates practicing in various Courts within the District jurisdiction of Ramanathapuram are its Members.
3. The petitioners have made the following objections for realignment of jurisdiction:
(a) Realignment is based on the revenue classification namely Firka and instead it should be based on the villages.
(b) The impugned realignment is opposed to the rule found in the High Courts Circular No.1792 of 1879 in Volume – II, Chapter – II, the Civil Rules of practice and circular orders of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
According to the petitioners, before effecting any realignment in the Civil Jurisdiction, a report from the District Collector shall be obtained and the same shall be forwarded to the second respondent for its consideration, as per Circular No.1792 of 1879.
(c) Public hearing shall be held before realignment.
(d) The impugned realignment have made the litigant public to travel a long distance.
4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Circular No.1792 of 1879 does not make it incumbent upon the District Judge to call for suggestions, even if the Chief Executive Officer of a District does not offer the same. It is also stated that there is no requirement to hear the public, prior to redistribution of local jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It is further stated that there was a request from the Advocate Association, Rameswaram to redraw the civil jurisdiction of the Munsif Courts concerned, by attaching the civil jurisdiction of Mandapam Firka with the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram. Based on the same, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram was requested to send detailed remarks along with statistical report on the subject. Pursuant to the same, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram sent remarks stating that the criminal cases arising from Dhanuskodi to Mandapam are tried in the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram and that it would be easy for the litigant public of Mandapam Firka to approach the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram for filing civil suits. It is stated that in the said circumstances, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram was also directed to send a draft notification and accordingly, he sent a draft notification that was submitted before the Honourable Portfolio Judge and the Honourable then Acting Chief Justice for approval and the approved notification under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 was published by the second respondent in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary issue No.26 under Part VI Section 1 dated 07.07.2010. Thus, the second respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the submissions made on either side. The learned counsel for the second respondent has produced the entire records for perusal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made his submissions based on the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Besides, the learned counsel, on seeing the counter affidavit that the impugned notification was approved by the Honourable Portfolio Judge and the Honourable then
