1. Civil Misc. Application No. 143408 of 2016 :

2. Civil Misc. Application No. 69142 of 2016 :

By the Court.—Appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No. 143408 of 2016, under Section 21 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1887), with a prayer that record of First Appeal, under consideration, be transmitted to the Court of District Judge, Allahabad, in view of amendment in Section 21 of Act,1887 by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2015 as well as notification issued by Chief Justice, dated 9.2.2016, under Section 21 (1) (b) of Act, 1887.

2. This application was assigned to the Bench presided by one of us (Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J) by Chief Justice vide order dated 3.5.2016.

3. When matter came-up on 10th May, 2016, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent informed that they have also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 69142 of 2016, under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) read with Chapter XXII, Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1952”) for transfer of this appeal to this Court since substantial hearing has already taken place and matter having been expedited by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it be appropriate to be heard and decided by this Court. This Transfer Application was cognizable by Single Judge, hence, Division Bench again on 10.5.2016 directed the matter to be placed before Chief Justice so that both applications may be heard by same Bench.

4. Acting Chief Justice passed order dated 17.5.2016 directing that both these matters as well as other connected/incidental matters be placed before a Bench presided by one of us (Hon’ Sudhir Agarwal, J) and that is how both these applications have come-up before us.

5. Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate appearing for appellant-applicant vehemently contended that valuation of appeal is less than 25 lacs and by operation of law, appeal stands transferred to Court of District Judge, hence, neither this Court has any jurisdiction nor Transfer Application is admissible nor even otherwise jurisdiction can be retained by this Court to decide this appeal as that would deny a right of second appeal to appellant.

6. On the contrary, Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent contended that here is a case where early hearing of appeal was consented by both parties on the very first day when appeal was entertained and admitted on 26.5.2016. Since, thereafter, appeal was heard on merit substantially and for quite a long time but on account of dilatory tactics adopted by appellant, hearing could not complete despite the fact that at the instance of appellant itself, Supreme Court has also directed that this appeal should be decided by this Court, expeditiously and it was required to be decided preferably by December, 2015 but since then even more than half of 2016 has passed, but matter has not proceeded further.

7. Before considering legal submissions advanced by both sides and other relevant aspects on merits of these applications, we find it appropriate to place on record certain background facts of this appeal.

8. This is a regular First Appeal arising from judgment dated 5.5.2015 and decree dated 15.5.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No. 503 of 1989. It could be decided by Civil Court after almost 26 years and that too when orders were passed by Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of Suit.

9. Dispute relates to Office of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya at Jyotirmath Badrikashram.

10. When appeal came-up for admission before Division Bench on 26.5.2016, looking to nature of dispute and volume of record etc., Court found that instead of keeping matter pending and deciding only interim application, it would be in the interest of parties, if appeal itself is decided on merits, expeditiously and to this, both sides agreed. Appeal was fixed for 14.7.2015 for final hearing. The relevant part of order dated 26.5.20