Appeal against order of vacation Court n ot maintainable.

This Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore in C.M.A. No. 43 of 1991.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows : The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.18 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakonam and also filed I. A. No. 21 of 1991 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from functioning as Member of the Arakonam North Pastorate Committee. The vacation Civil Court heard the injunction application in I.A. No. 21 of 1991 and dismissed the same on merits. As against the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 43 of 1991 before the District Judge. The Revision Petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit and respondents in the C.M.A. before the learned District Judge raised an objection that since the impugned order was passed by the Vacation Civil Judge, the appeal lies only to the High Court by virture of the provisions of S. 30(7) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, and the District Court is not having jurisdiction, and on that ground, the appeal has to be dismissed on the preliminary point itself. The learned District Judge, after referring to sub-clauses (3), (6) and (7) of Section 30 of the Civil Courts Act came to the conclusion that since the papers were transferred to the concerned court, after vacation was over, and in view of S.30 (6) of the Civil Courts Act, the appeal filed before the District Court is maintainable and consequently held that the District Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and dismissed the application filed by the respondents raising the preliminary objection. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge has not properly construed the meaning of S. 30 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Court Act, 1873 and if so done, the appeal against the order passed by the vacation Civil Court even after vacation lies to the High Court, and the power given by S. 30(6) has been taken away by the provision of the non obstante clause.

4. Per contra: Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is absolutely nothing to show that the power of the District Court under S. 13 of the Civil Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure under O. 43, R.1 has been taken away and as such even if S. 30(6) of the Civil Courts Act is excluded, yet, cannot be said that the District Court has no jurisdiction.

5. For proper appreciation of the respective contentions of the parties, it is worthwhile to quote the relevant provisions of S. 30 of the Civil Courts Act, 1873 which deals with vacation, Section 30(2) of the Act provides as follows :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908). The State Government may, in consultation with the High Court for the duration of the adournment of any District Court in summer, appoint for such District Court Subordinate Judge to be designated the vacation Civil Judge." *

Section 30(3)(b) of the Act, which defines the jurisdiction of the Vacation Civil Judge runs as follows :

"The jurisdictions of the vacation Civil Judge extend to all suits, appeals and other proceedings pending in, or cognizable by, any Civil Court (Whether a District Court, a subordinate Judges Court, a District Munsiffs Court) in the district concerned when such Court is adjourned for summer vacation.

As per Section 30(6) of the Act," *

On the reopening of the District Court, a Subordinate Judges Court or a District Munsiffs Court after the summer vacation, all suits, appeals and other proceedings pending in the Court of the Vacation Civil Judge, which but for this section, would have been instituted or pending in such District Court, Subordinate Judges Court or District Munsiffs Court as the case may be shall stand transferred to such District Court, Subordinate Judges Court or Dis