( 1 ) THIS is an unusual application made in the following circumstances:

( 2 ) ON 22-12-1956, a decree in a civil suit was passed against the Union of India by the Civil judge of Barabanki. The District of Bara-banki is an area in Oudh over which a Bench of this court sitting at Lucknow exercises, by virtue of Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, and a direction made by the Chief Justice thereunder, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the High Court, and in the ordinary course the memorandum of appeal which the applicant proposed to prefer against the judgment of the Civil judge of Barabanki would have been filed before that Bench. By inadvertence the memorandum of appeal was presented to the Court at Allahabad, and the Joint Registrar directed notice of the appeal to issue to the respondents. Upon the mistake being discovered the appellant filed the application which is now before us in which he prays that this Court may be pleased to declare that the memorandum of appeal was rightly filed at Allahabad or, in the event of the Court taking the view that the memorandum of appeal should have been filed before the Bench at Lucknow, the Court may be pleased to give such directions as may be necessary. The application is opposed by the respondents on whose behalf it is urged that this Court sitting at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the present application must be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE answer to the question we have to consider turns upon the interpretation of Clause 14 ef the Amalgamation Older. That clause provides that the High Court, and the Judges and Division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other place in the Uttar Pradesh as the Chief justice my with the approval of the Governor appoint. Then follow two provisos which read thus :

"provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief justice otherwise directs, such Judges of the new High Courts, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court. Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad. "

Now under the first proviso two Judges of the Court (unless the Governor with the concurrence of the Chief Justice otherwise directs) must sit at Lucknow for the purpose of exercising in respect of certain cases arising in Oudh "the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court"; and it is necessary to determine whether the jurisdiction and power exercised by such Judges (to whom it is convenient to refer as the Lucknow Bench) is to the exclusion of the jurisdiction and power exercised by the Court sitting at Allahabad or at such other places as may be appointed, for if the answer to that question be in the affirmative it is difficult to see how the Court at Allaha-bad can entertain an appeal from a Court which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Luck-now Bench.

( 4 ) THERE is authority for the view that the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench is of an exclusive character. In Saghir Ahmad v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 190 (A), an application was made to the Court at Allahabad under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a person resident in Kheri who had been detained on the orders of the Provincial Government under the U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, Z947. Mr. Justice Bindbasni Prasad upheld a preliminary objection that the application should have been made to the Lucknow Bench on the ground that

"it is the Bench of the High Court at Lucknow which alone can exercise the jurisdiction and powers of this Court in respect of cases arising in Avad