ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BRODHURST, DUTHOIT, MAHMOOD, OLDFIELD, W. COMER PETHERAM, JJ.
Mazhar Husain & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Nidhi Lal - Respondent
Decided On : 13-12-1884
JUDGMENT
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. - The question raised by this reference is whether a District Judge or Subordinate Judge has any jurisdiction to try a suit in which the value of the subject-matter in dispute is less than Rs. 1,000. The question arises on the construction of Sections 19 and 20 of the Bengal Civil Courts Act, and Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1859, for which Sections 15 and 25 of the present CPC have been substituted. The sections must all be read together. Reading them together, it appears that the jurisdiction of the District Judge or Subordinate Judge extends to all suits cognizable by the Civil Court, whatever the value of the subject-matter in dispute may be. The jurisdiction of the Munsif extends to all like suits the value of the subject-matter in dispute in which does not exceed Rs. 1,000. That is to say, up to Rs. 1,000 the Munsif and the District Judge or Subordinate Judge have concurrent jurisdiction. Then comes Section 6, which must be read in as a proviso. The section which has been substituted is practically the same. The word "shall" is, in my opinion, imperative on the suitor. The word is used for the purpose of protecting the Courts. The suitor shall be obliged to bring his suit in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The object of the Legislature is that the Court of the higher grade shall not be overcrowded with suits. Whenever an Act confers a benefit, the donee may exercise the same or not at his pleasure. The proviso is for the benefit of the Court of the higher grade, and it is not bound to take advantage of it. If it does not wish to try the suit, it may refuse to entertain it. If it wishes to retain the suit in its Court, it may do so it is not bound to refuse to entertain it. Consequently, VI am of opinion that the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction in the present case.
Oldfield, J.
2. By Section 19, Act VI of 1871, the jurisdiction of the District Judge and Subordinate Judge extends, subject to the provisions of Section 6, Act VIII of 1859, to all original suits cognizable by the Civil Court. Section 6 provided that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, and this provision is re-enacted in Section 15 of the present Code of Civil Procedure. This last provision is one entirely of procedure as distinct from jurisdiction, and the effect is that the jurisdiction of the Distrust Judge and the Subordinate Judge extends to all original suits cognizable by the Civil Court, subject in its exercise to a certain procedure, namely, that the suits be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try them.
3. Section 15 does not in any sense affect jurisdiction, and in the case before us the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction, although there may have been a transgression of the rule of procedure laid down in Section 15.
4. I may add that in the case of Gulzari Lal v. Jadaun Rai ILR 2 All. 799 the decision turned on a question of valuation, and the point now before us was not, it would seem, raised or discussed.
Brodhurst, J.
5. For the purpose of disposing of this reference, it is desirable, at the outset, to look at Act XVI of 1868, which was repealed by Act VI of 1871, the Bengal Civil Courts Act now in force.
6. By referring to Sections 13, 15 and 16 of the former Act, it will be seen that, whilst Munsifs were empowered to try all original suits cognizable by the Civil Court of which the subject-matter did not exceed in value or amount Rs. 1,000, Subordinate Judges were empowered to try all suits cognizable by the said Courts, of which the subject-matter exceeded in amount or value Rs. 1,000, and they were debarred from trying suits of less value unless they had been invested by the Local Government with the powers of a Munsif u/s 13, or such suits had been transferred to them by the District Judge under the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. The jurisdiction of a Munsif u/s 20, Act VI of 1871, is exactly the same as it was by Section 13
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.