Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1905 DIGILAW 149 (ALL)

Allahdia Begam v. Kesri Mal

1905-07-01

BANERJI, RICHARDS

body1905
JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— The facts out of which this application for revision has arisen are these:— The applicants brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur in respect of property situated in the district of Muzaffarnagar. On the 17th of February, 1905, the Subordinate Judge made a decree, dismissing the suit, By a Notification, dated the 24th of February, 1905, issued by the Local Government under section 13 of the Civil Courts Act (No. XII of 1887), jurisdiction of the District Judge of Saharanpur was limited to the districts of Saharanpur and Dehra Dun, and the district of Muzaffarnagar was transferred to the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Meerut, with effect from the 1st of March, 1905. By a subsequent Notification, a portion of the district of Muzaffarnagar was retained within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Saharanpur, but that Notification is immaterial for the purposes of this case, inasmuch as the suit of the applicants relates to property situated in that portion of the district of Muzaffarnagar which has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Meerut. On the 31st of March, 1903, the applicants before us presented a petition of appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, in the Court of the District Judge of Saharanpur. On the 12th of April, 1905, the District Judge returned the memorandum of appeal to the applicants for presentation in the Court of District Judge of Meerut, being of opinion that having regard to the Notification of the Government referred to above, he had ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of cases relating to Muzaffarnagar district. The memorandum of appeal was thereupon presented to the District Judge of Meerut, who, by his order of 27th April, 1905, returned the memorandum of appeal to the applicants for presentation to the Court of the District Judge of Saharanpur. It is in consequence of these conflicting orders of the District Judges of Saharanpur and Meerut, that the present application has been made, and the applicants ask us to determine which of the two Courts has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal to make necessary orders in respect of it. It is in consequence of these conflicting orders of the District Judges of Saharanpur and Meerut, that the present application has been made, and the applicants ask us to determine which of the two Courts has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal to make necessary orders in respect of it. We have given the matter our careful attention, and we are of opinion that the order of the District Judge of Saharanpur is correct, and that the petition of appeal ought to have been entertained by the District Judge of Meerut, By section 17, sub-section (1), of Act No. XII of 1887, it is provided as follows:— “Where any Civil Court under this Act has from any cause ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case, any proceeding in relation to that which, if that Court had not ceased to have jurisdiction, might have been had therein, may be had in the Court to which the business of the former Court has been transferred.” It is clear that the Court of the District Judge at Saharanpur has, by reason of the Notification of the Government to which we have referred, ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of the case arising out of the suit brought by the applicants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur. We have no doubt that the said suit is “a case” within the meaning of that expression in the section. We have also no doubt that an appeal is a “proceeding,” in relation to that case. This proceeding might have been had in the Court at Saharanpur, but for the Notification of the Government to which we have referred. Consequently, having regard to the provisions of section 17, the proceeding, namely, the appeal, which might have been had in the Court at Saharanpur, may now be had in the Court to which the business of the Saharanpur Court has by the Notification of Government, been transferred, namely, the Court of the District Judge of Meerut. On this point there can be no doubt having regard to the language of section 17. Reference was made in the argument to section 21 of the Act. But that section must be read subject to the other provisions of the Act, including section 17. On this point there can be no doubt having regard to the language of section 17. Reference was made in the argument to section 21 of the Act. But that section must be read subject to the other provisions of the Act, including section 17. Consequently the appeal in this case lay to the Court of the District Judge of Meerut and not to the Court of the District Judge of Saharanpur. We accordingly direct the District Judge of Meerut to receive and entertain the memorandum of appeal which was presented to him on the 17th of April, 1905, and which he returned by his order of the 27th of that month, and we further direct that the original memorandum of appeal filed with the application for revision be returned to the applicants. Costs of this application will be costs in the cause.