Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal, J.
MUNNILAL KAILASH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
AKABAI, MALHARRAO - Respondents
Civil Revn. 66 Of 1959
Decided On : 08/20/1959
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - RULES MADE BY HIGH COURT - APPLICABILITY - RULES MADE BY HIGH COURT OF FORMER MADHYA PRADESH - APPLICABILITY TO TERRITORIES OF NEW MADHYA PRADESH - SECTIONS 119, 120, 122 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956, SECTIONS 2, 9, 119, 120, 54.
Fact of the Case:
In execution of a decree, the objectors filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The executing Court rejected the application for stay of sale, applying Rule 58 (2) of Order 21 of the CPC as amended by the Nagpur High Court. The objectors filed a revision petition challenging the applicability of the amended rule to the territories of the new Madhya Pradesh.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the rules made by the High Court of the former Madhya Pradesh under the CPC continued to be operative in those territories of the new Madhya Pradesh State which were part of the former Madhya Pradesh, but they were not operative in the territories of the former Madhya Bharat State, which was now part of the new Madhya Pradesh State.
Issues: Whether the rules made by the High Court of the former Madhya Pradesh under the CPC were applicable to the territories of the new Madhya Pradesh, including the territories of the former Madhya Bharat State.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Sections 2, 9, 119, 120, 122 of the CPC and Sections 2, 9, 119, 120, 54 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It held that Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act provided for a fiction that for the purpose of the application of the laws, it must be forgotten that there had been a reorganization of States. Therefore, all the laws which were in force in the territories of Madhya Bharat continued to operate in those territories notwithstanding the alteration of the territories or the formation of the new State. However, Section 120 of the Act provided a machinery for making laws uniform if the State Government or the legislature so desired. Since the rules made by the High Court of the former Madhya Pradesh under the CPC had not been adapted under Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act for the territories of the former Madhya Bharat State, they were not operative in those territories.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the executing Court, and directed that the application for stay of sale filed by the objectors be considered in light of the observations made by the Court. The Court also directed that the sale be stayed until the disposal of the application for stay of sale.
( 1 ) THIS revision raises an interesting point. The question is whether the Rules made by the High Court at Nagpur in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') and which were in force in the former State of Madhya Pradesh as it existed before the Reorganization of States on 1-11-1956, are enforceable in that territory of the new Madhya Pradesh which upto 31-10-1950 was called the Part B State of Madhya Bharat.
( 2 ) THE material facts are these. In execution of a decree against Kailash Chandm (judgment-debtor), Akabai (decree-holder) got his house attached. Munnilal and others filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 13-3-1959. Without deciding that petition, the executing Court fixed 1-7-1959, for the sale of the house. The objectors then filed an application on May 8, 1959 praying that the sale be stayed until the disposal of their objection petition. The executing court rejected this application, by applying Rule 58 (2) of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Nagpur High Court. Aggrieved by the same the objectors have filed this revision petition.
( 3 ) THE contention of Shri Swami Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decree was passed by and is being executed in a Court at Gwalior, and Gwalior was a part of the former Madhya Bharat State so that unless and until the Rule made by the Nagpur High Court is adapted in the new State of Madhya Pradesh, it can have no application to this execution.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate this point, the scheme of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has to be examined.
( 5 ) UNDER Section 2 of the Act the following definitions are relevant:
(a) "appointed day" means the 1st day of November, 1930. (d) "corresponding new State" means in relation to the existing State of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Mysore, Punjab or Rajasthan, the new State with the same name, and in relation to the existing Slate of Travancore-Cochin, the new State of Kerala. (e) "corresponding State means, in relation to the new State of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Mysore, Punjab of Rajasthan, the existing State with the same name, and in relation to the new State of Kerala, the existing State of Travncore-Cochin. (g) "existing State" means a State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution, at the commencement of this Act; (h) "law" includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, byelaw, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having the force of law in the whole or in any part of the territory of India;
( 6 ) SECTION 9 (of part II) provides for the formation of a new State of Madhya Pradesh comprising of the territories enumerated therein including the territories of the 'corresponding State' of Madhya Pradesh (except certain districts) and the territories of the 'existing State' of Madhya Bharat except Sunel.
( 7 ) PART V deals with "high Courts. "
( 8 ) PART XI is about "legal and Miscellaneous Provisions. " In this part Section 119 reads thus:
"the provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies and territorial references in any such law to an existing State shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. "
( 9 ) THIS section provides for a fiction and makes it very clear by the deeming provision that for the purpose of the application of the laws it must be forgotten that there has been reorganization of States'. Whatever laws were in force immediately before November 1, 1956 continue to operate in the respective areas of the existing States. In other words, all the laws which were in force in the territories of Madhya Bharat continue to operate in those terr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
