Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, S.MADHUSUDAN RAO
Jalagam Sitarama Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-31-77
TRANSFER OF SUITS - AGENCY COURT - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY - AGENCY RULES - SCOPE AND EFFECT - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO TRANSFER SUITS FROM AGENCY COURT TO CIVIL COURT - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Two transfer petitions were filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for the transfer of suits from an Agency Court to a Civil Court. The suits were filed against the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, who was also designated as the Agent to the Government in the respective areas. The transfer was sought on the ground that certain allegations were made against the Agent himself and that the action of the Agent in seeking of the powers conferred on him under the Scheduled District Act and the Agency Rules made thereunder, read with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 furnished the cause of action for the suit. The Agent opposed the transfer on the ground that the High Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC to transfer a suit from an Agency court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Civil Procedure Code applies to the territory in which the Agency Court in which the present suits have been filed is situate, and that there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Scheduled District Act, the Agency Rules made thereunder or the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation, which curtails the power vested in the High Court under Section 24 CPC either expressly or by necessary implication to transfer a suit pending in an Agency Court to a Civil Court. The Court further held that the Agency Court is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 24, CPC and that the High Court is competent to transfer a suit pending in the Agency Court to another Court Subordinate to it and competent to try the suit. The Court also held that Rule 12 of the Agency Rules, which authorizes the High Court to transfer a suit, appeal or proceeding instituted in any Agency Court to a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court on an application made to it by the Agent to the Government with the sanction of the State Government, does not confer a right on any party to a proceeding to apply to the High Court for the transfer of a suit, appeal or proceeding from one Agency Court to another Agency Court or from an Agency Court to a Civil Court and that it does not expressly take away the jurisdiction of the High Court. Nor are there any words in Rule 12 which by necessary implication excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court. That rule only empowers the Agent to move the high Court for the transfer of a suit from out of his jurisdiction. From that it cannot be inferred that the jurisdiction vested in the high Court under Section 24, CPC is in any way restricted or taken away.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Procedure Code applies to the territory in which the Agency Court in which the present suits have been filed is situate? 2. Whether there is anything in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Scheduled District Act, the Agency Rules made thereunder or the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation, which curtails the power vested in the High Court under Section 24 CPC either expressly or by necessary implication to transfer a suit pending in an Agency Court to a Civil Court? 3. Whether the Agency Court is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 24, CPC? 4. Whether the High Court is competent to transfer a suit pending in the Agency Court to another Court Subordinate to it and competent to try the suit? 5. Whether Rule 12 of the Agency Rules, which authorizes the High Court to transfer a suit, appeal or proceeding instituted in any Agency Court to a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court on an application made to it by the Agent to the Government with the sanction of the State Government, confers a right on any party to a proceeding to apply to the High Court for the transfer of a suit, appeal or proceeding from one Agency Court to another Agency Court or from an Agency Court to a Civil Court? 6. Whether Rule 12 of the Agency Rules expressly takes away the jurisdiction of the High Court? 7. Whether there are any words in Rule 12 which by necessary implication excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Civil Procedure Code applies to the territory in which the Agency Court in which the present suits have been filed is situate, and that there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Scheduled District Act, the Agency Rules made thereunder or the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation, which curtails the power vested in the High Court under Section 24 CPC either expressly or by necessary implication to transfer a suit pending in an Agency Court to a Civil Court. 2. The Agency Court is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 24, CPC and that the High Court is competent to transfer a suit pending in the Agency Court to another Court Subordinate to it and competent to try the suit. 3. Rule 12 of the Agency Rules, which authorizes the High Court to transfer a suit, appeal or proceeding instituted in any Agency Court to a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court on an application made to it by the Agent to the Government with the sanction of the State Government, does not confer a right on any party to a proceeding to apply to the High Court for the transfer of a suit, appeal or proceeding from one Agency Court to another Agency Court or from an Agency Court to a Civil Court and that it does not expressly take away the jurisdiction of the High Court. Nor are there any words in Rule 12 which by necessary implication excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court. That rule only empowers the Agent to move the high Court for the transfer of a suit from out of his jurisdiction. From that it cannot be inferred that the jurisdiction vested in the high Court under Section 24, CPC is in any way restricted or taken away.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed and the suits were transferred from the Agency Court to the Civil Court.
( 1 ) THESE two transfer C. M. Ps. under S. 24 of the Civil P. C. are for the transfer of the suits from the Agency Court to a Civil Court. Tr. C. lm. P. No. 5301/77 is filed for transfer of the suit, O. S. No. 5/77 on the file of the Agent to Government at Khammam to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Khammam. Tr. C. M. P. No. 7231/77 is for the transfer of O. S. No. 8/76 on the file of the Agent to the State Government (District Collector), Warangal to the file of the Subordinate Judges Court or District Judges Court at Warangal.
( 2 ) BOTH the suits are filed against the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector who is also designated as the Agent to the Government in the respective areas. For the disposal of these petitions, it is enough to state the facts in Tr. C. M. P. No. 5301/77. That suit is filed for an injunction against the Government and in particular against the Agent to the Government restraining him from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the lands situated in an agency area. The Agent is impleaded as a party-defendant in the suit. The transfer of the suit is sought on the ground that in the suit certain allegations are made against the Agent himself and that the action of the Agent in seeking of the powers conferred on him under the Scheduled District Act and the Agency Rules made thereunder, read with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 furnishes the cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner apprehends that justice would not be done and it is therefore inexpedient that the suit should be tried by the Agent. 2-A. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition under S. 24 of the Civil P. C. is raised by the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent in these two petitions.
( 3 ) IT may be stated at the outset that on the facts of these cases in particular the respondent has not opposed the transfer of the suits from the file of the particular Agency Court. The respondent opposes only on the ground that the High Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under S. 24 C. P. C. to transfer a suit from an Agency court. The Government contends that C. P. C. does not apply to Agency Area or Agency Courts and that in any event the transfer of suit pending in an Agency Court could be made only to another Agency Court but not to a Civil Court. On the other hand the petitioner contends that the Civil P. C. is in force in the territory in which the suits are filed and the power vested in the High Court under S. 24 C. P. C. is not curtailed in any manner by the Scheduled Districts Act or the Agency Rules made thereunder so as to prohibit the transfer of a suit pending in an Agency Court to a Civil Court. It is therefore necessary to examine firstly whether the Code of Civil Procedure is in force in the territory in which the Agency Court in which the present suits have been filed is situate, and secondly if there is anything in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Scheduled District Act, the Agency Rules made thereunder or the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation, which curtails the power vested in the High Court under S. 24 C. P. C. either expressly or by necessary implication to transfer a suit pending in the Agency Court to a Civil Court.
( 4 ) ONE of the suits, as already noticed above, is pending before the Agent to the Government at Khammam and the other before the Agent to Government at Warangal. These suits were instituted in the years 1975 and 1976 respectively. The Civil P. C. as amended by Amendment Act 104 of 1976 came into force on 1/02/1977. These petitions for transfer have been filed subsequent to this amendment. S. 1 (3) and (4) of the amended Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "1. (3) It extends to the whole of India except:- (a) the State of Jammu and Kashmir; (b) State of Nagaland and the tribal areas; Provided that the State Government c
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
