C. C. BASU v. PATEL DAHYABHAI VAGHJIBHAI — 1966 DIGILAW 68 (GUJ)

B. J. DIVAN, J. ( 1 ) THE opponents in both these Civil Revision Applications are the same. The petitioners in the two Civil Revision Applications are different. The opponents in both these Civil Revision Applications are the landlords and the petitioners in each of these Civil Revision Applications are the tenants occupying different portions of the same building which is situated at Baroda. The plaintiffs had filed two suits against these two different tenants for recovery of possession of the premises in suit and the suits were originally filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Baroda. Thereafter both these suits were transferred. So far as the suit from which Civil Revision Application No. 197 of 1966 arises is concerned it was transferred to the Court of the 5th Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Baroda and so far as the suit from which Civil Revision Application No. 106 of 1966 arises is concerned it was transferred to the Court of the 6th Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Baroda. While these suits were pending in the Courts of the 5th and the 6th Joint Civil Judges Jr. Dn. Baroda respectively the District Judge Baroda passed an order under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transferring these two suits to the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Sr. Dn Baroda. After both these suits were thus transferred an application was filed by the respective defendant in each of these two suits contending that under the provisions of sec 28 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it was only the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Dn. functioning at Baroda that had exclusive jurisdiction to try these suits under the Act and therefore the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Sr. Dn. had no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suits. The learned trial Judge dismissed both these applications by separate judgments which were both on the same lines and the present two Civil Revision Applications have been filed against the judgment and orders in these two suits. ( 2 ) THE same point is involved in both the Civil Revision Applications and I will dispose of both of them by this common judgment. ( 3 ) THE contention on behalf of the petitioners in these two Civil Revision. ( 2 ) THE same point is involved in both the Civil Revision Applications and I will dispose of both of them by this common judgment. ( 3 ) THE contention on behalf of the petitioners in these two Civil Revision. Applications is based on the wording of sec. 28 of the Act and so far as is relevant the words of the section are: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason the suit or proceeding would not but for this provision be within its jurisdiction (b) elsewhere the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate or if there is no such Civil Judge the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this part apply and. . . . . no other court shall have jurisdiction to. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . entertain any such suit proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question. Now the Act nowhere lays down how the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Dn. is to be constituted or how the Court of Civil Judge Sr. Dn. is to be constituted or how the area in which these two different types of Courts are to exercise their ordinary jurisdiction is to be determined. In order to find out how the Courts of Civil Judges Jr. Dn. and the Courts of Civil Judges Sr. Dn. in different areas are to be constituted and also to find out the areas in which these respective Courts have ordinary jurisdiction one has to go to the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act being Bombay Act No. 14 of 1869. ( 4 ) SEC. 21 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act provides that there shall be in each district so many Civil Courts subordinate to the District Court as the State Government shall from time to time direct. ( 4 ) SEC. 21 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act provides that there shall be in each district so many Civil Courts subordinate to the District Court as the State Government shall from time to time direct. Provided that for special reasons it shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to close temporarily any such Subordinate Court. Sec. 22 provides that the Judges of such Subordinate Courts shall be appointed by the State Government and shall be called Civil Judges. Under sec. 22a the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette fix and by a like notification from time to time alter the local limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil Judges. Sec. 23 provides that the Civil Judges shall hold their Courts at such place or places as the State Government may from time to time appoint within the local limits of their respective jurisdictions; and the 5th para of sec. 23 provides that for the purpose of assisting the Judge of any subordinate Court in the disposal of the civil business on his file the High Court may appoint to such Court from the members of the Subordinate Civil Judicial Service of the State one or more Joint Civil Judges or the District Judge may with the previous sanction of the High Court depute to such Court the Judge of another subordinate Court within the district. Then the section proceeds:a Civil Judge thus appointed or deputed to assist in the Court of another Civil Judge shall dispose of such civil business within the limits of his pecuniary jurisdiction as may subject to the control of the District Judge be referred to him by the Judge of such Court. Then the section also provides:for the purposes of this section the provisions of the Act applicable to Civil Judges shall be and shall be deemed always to have been applicable to Joint Civil Judges. The proviso is not relevant for the purposes of this judgment. ( 5 ) SEC. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act provides:the Civil Judges shall be of two classes. The jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) extends to all original suit and proceeding of a civil nature. The proviso is not relevant for the purposes of this judgment. ( 5 ) SEC. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act provides:the Civil Judges shall be of two classes. The jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) extends to all original suit and proceeding of a civil nature. The jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) extends to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature wherein the subject-matter does not exceed in amount or value ten thousand rupees. The proviso to sec. 24 is not relevant for the purposes of this judgment. Sec. 25 provides:a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in addition to his ordinary jurisdiction shall exercise a special jurisdiction in respect of such suits and proceedings of a civil nature as may arise within the local jurisdiction of the Courts in the district presided over by Civil Judges (Junior Division) and wherein the subject matter exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as defined by section 24. In districts to which more than one Civil Judge (Senior Division) have appointed the District Judge subject to the orders of the High Court shall assign to each the local limits within which his said special jurisdiction is to be exercised. It may be pointed out that under sec. 32 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act no subordinate Court other then the Court of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and no Court of Small Causes shall receive or register any suit in which the Crown or any officer of the Crown in his official capacity is a party and sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32 provides that in every such case the plaintiff shall be referred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and such suit shall be instituted only in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and shall be heard by such Civil Judge subject to the provisions of sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( 6 ) IT is clear that under the scheme of the Bombay Civil Courts Act the State Government sets up Civil Courts subordinate to the District Court and appoints Civil Judges who may be either Civil Judges (Senior Division) or Civil Judges (Junior Division) to such Courts. Under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( 6 ) IT is clear that under the scheme of the Bombay Civil Courts Act the State Government sets up Civil Courts subordinate to the District Court and appoints Civil Judges who may be either Civil Judges (Senior Division) or Civil Judges (Junior Division) to such Courts. Under sec. 22a the State Government has to fix the local limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of the different Civil Judges appointed to the different Courts constituted under sec. 21. The appointment of Joint Civil Judges is made under sec. 23 and it is clear from the scheme of that section that though there may be one Court of Civil Judge Sc. Dn. at a particular place joint Civil Judges who may be either Joint Civil Judges Sr. Dn. or Joint Civil Judges Jr. Dn. may be appointed and under ordinary circumstances such Joint Judges exercise pecuniary jurisdiction accordingly as they are Civil Judges Sr. Dn. or Civil Judges Jr. Dn. and the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of such Joint Civil Judges are the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the principal Court to which they are joint. Further such Joint Civil Judges have to dispose of only such work as has been referred to them either by the principal Judge of the Court to which they are joint or has been referred to them by the District Judge of the district in which such Courts are situate. It is therefore clear that the Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. wherever he has been appointed to assist the principal Judge of the Court to which he is joint has no jurisdiction to receive any suit simpliciter. Further he has no jurisdiction to dispose of any civil business suits or proceedings other than that which is referred to him either by the principal Judge of the Court to which he is joint or by the District Court of the district where such court is situate. It is with reference to the background of these provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 that one has to consider the provisions of sec. 28 of the Act viz. Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute before me that so far as the town of Baroda is concerned there is only one Court viz. 28 of the Act viz. Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute before me that so far as the town of Baroda is concerned there is only one Court viz. the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baroda and under sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act Civil Judges both Senior Division and Junior Division have been appointed as Joint Civil Judges to assist the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baroda in the disposal of the civil business on his file. ( 8 ) THE question then arises as to whether the jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding falling within the provisions of sec. 28 of the Act can be exercised by a Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. at Baroda. It is clear from the scheme of the Bombay Civil Courts Act which I have analysed earlier that a Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. has no power to entertain any suit in the first instance. A Joint Civil Judge either Senior Division or Junior Division can only dispose of such matters as are referred to him ether by the principal Judge of the Court to which he is joint or by the District Judge of the district in which such court is situate. ( 9 ) I am fortified in this conclusion of mine by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rathod Bhojaji v. Pathan Nasirkhan III G. L. R. 803. In that case a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Shelat J. (as he then was) and Modi J. considered the provisions of sec. 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 and also the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act sec. 23. Under sec. 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act it was provided that the election petition under the Act had to be presented in the Court of a Civil Judge Jr. Dn. and if there be no Civil Judge Jr. Dn. then to the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held for the determination of such question and in the light of the provisions of sec. Dn. and if there be no Civil Judge Jr. Dn. then to the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held for the determination of such question and in the light of the provisions of sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act the Division Bench held that a Civil Judge (Junior Division) who has been posted as a Joint Judge under sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 at a place where there is no Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division ). has no independent Court where suits and proceedings can be filed. It may be pointed out that the wording of sec. 15 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and sec. 28 of the Act are in pari materia so far as the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Judges Senior Division and Civil Judges Junior Division to entertain either the election petition or the suit as she case might be is concerned. It was held in that particular case that in Mehsana there being no Court of a Civil Judge Junior Division where civil work can be filed the Civil Judge who had such jurisdiction was the Civil Judge Senior Division and it was further held that under sec. 15 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 the Civil Judge Senior Division was a persona designata and he could not transfer an election petition filed before him to another Judge. The question of persona designata or the power to transfer does not arise so far as the provisions of the Act before me are concerned but so far as the scheme of sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act is concerned the decision of the Division Bench will be applicable to the present case as well. It may be pointed that in that particular case what was challenged was the election to the Panchayat of Village Tundali situate in Mehsana Taluka of Mehsana District and the Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana was the Court having ordinary jurisdiction so far as Mehsana Taluka was concerned. At page 805 of the report the Division Bench has observed as follows:the question is whether at the time when the application was made there was a Civil Judge (Junior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction in Tundali Mehsana Taluka. It is clear that under sec. At page 805 of the report the Division Bench has observed as follows:the question is whether at the time when the application was made there was a Civil Judge (Junior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction in Tundali Mehsana Taluka. It is clear that under sec. 15 (1) if there was no such Civil Judge (Junior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction in Tundali where the election took place then the application challenging the election must be filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division ). It is not in dispute that there is no Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Mehsana Taluka who has ordinary jurisdiction in the village Tundali. Consequently all civil suits and proceedings have to be and are in fact filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mehsana which is the principal town of Mehsana Taluka and within which the village Tundali is situate. There being no Court of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Mehsana all such suits and proceedings have to be and are in fact. filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division ). It is true that a Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been posted by the High Court at Mehsana as a Joint Civil Judge but that has been done with a view to assist the Civil Judge (Senior Division) there to dispose of the work filed in his Court. Being a Joint Judge he disposes of such suits and matters as are transferred to his file by the principal Judge viz the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mehsana and which suits and matters are within his pecuniary Jurisdiction. Being a Civil Judge (Junior Division) his pecuniary Jurisdiction is limited upto Rs. 10 0 It is thus clear that there is only one Court in Mehsana town and that of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) who has under sec. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 jurisdiction to dispose of all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature whether of the value of Rs. 10 0 and above or below Rs. 10 0 There the work being in sufficient quantity a Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been posted by the High Court only for the purpose of assisting him in the disposal of matters filed in that Court. But unlike some Taluka towns in that District. 10 0 and above or below Rs. 10 0 There the work being in sufficient quantity a Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been posted by the High Court only for the purpose of assisting him in the disposal of matters filed in that Court. But unlike some Taluka towns in that District. Mehsana being also a District town there are in that town Courts of the District Judge the Assistant Judge and the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) but as stated above there is no Court of a Civil Judge (Junior Division ). With the substitution of the word Mehsana for Baroda and the words Baroda Town for Tundali village whatever has been stated in the passage just now cited from the decision of the Division Bench will apply with equal force to the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) IT is true that by virtue of the opening words of sec. 28 of the Act which lays down non-obstante clauses a Civil Judge Junior Division disposes of a matter under the Act either because such matter has been originally entertained in his Court or because being a Joint Civil Judge such matter has been transferred to him either by the principal Judge of the Court to which he is joint or by the District Judge and such a Civil Judge Junior Division can dispose of suits of any valuation irrespective of the fact that under sec. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act ordinarily his pecuniary jurisdiction is to try suits upto the valuation of Rs. 10 0 Similarly notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 32 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act in any suit in which the Government or an officer of the Government in his official capacity is a party where the suit is governed by the provisions of the Act because of the non-obstante clause at the commencement of sec. 28 of the Act a Civil Judge Junior Division will have jurisdiction to entertain try and dispose of such suits though ordinarily but for such non-obstante clauses he would not have such jurisdiction to dispose of such suits against the Government or the officers of the Government in their official capacity. ( 11 ) IT was contended that under sec. 28 (1) (b) of the Act the Court of the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. ( 11 ) IT was contended that under sec. 28 (1) (b) of the Act the Court of the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. having ordinary jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situated has jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit falling within the purview of the Act only if there is no Civil Judge Junior Division having jurisdiction in the area. It was contended before me that a Joint Civil Judge Junior Division has jurisdiction in the area viz Baroda Town but it has to be borne in mind that there must be a Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division having ordinary jurisdiction in Baroda town before it can be said that the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda has no jurisdiction to entertain and try suits arising within Baroda town or within the local limits of his jurisdiction as defined by sec. 22a of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. As I have emphasized earlier so far as Baroda town is concerned there is only the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division and no Joint Civil Judge either Senior Division or Junior Division. in Baroda town has ordinary jurisdiction to entertain and try suits except such suits as are referred to him under the provisions of sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. Therefore the words such Civil Judge occurring in sec. 28 (1) (b) of the Act have only reference to a Civil Judge Junior Division who is the Civil Judge Junior Division of a Court having ordinary jurisdiction over the area in which the premises are situated and as explained by the Division Bench in the case of Rothod Bhojaji III G. L. R 803 (supra) and also as explained by me on the analysis of the scheme of the Bombay Civil Courts Act Joint Civil Judge Junior Division posted at Baroda to assist the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda has no ordinary jurisdiction in Baroda town. ( 12 ) UNDER these circumstances apart from any other authority on the point it seems to me that in Baroda Town a suit or a proceeding referred to in sec. 28 of the Act can only be entertained and tried by the Civil Judge Senior Division and once it is entertained by him by virtue of sec. ( 12 ) UNDER these circumstances apart from any other authority on the point it seems to me that in Baroda Town a suit or a proceeding referred to in sec. 28 of the Act can only be entertained and tried by the Civil Judge Senior Division and once it is entertained by him by virtue of sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act it can be disposed of by any Joint Civil Judge who has been appointed to assist the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda for the disposal of civil matters on his file. It is by virtue of the non-obstante clause at the commencement of sec. 28 of the Act that the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda can dispose of matters of unlimited jurisdiction arising under the Act irrespective of the pecuniary valuation of such suit but he has no jurisdiction to entertain in the first instance any suit referred to in sec. 28 of the Act. Once it is held that the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division is the only Court which has jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit arising under the Act then it necessarily follows that all Joint Civil Judges either Senior Division or Junior Division to whom the suits have been referred either by the principal Judge of the Court or the Civil Judge Senior Division. or by the District Judge either under sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act or sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure will have jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. ( 13 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners in these two Civil Revision Applications that there are some decisions of Division Benches of the High Court at Bombay prior to Bifurcation in 1960 which lay down that so far as the jurisdiction under sec. 28 (1) (b) of the Act is concerned the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division has no jurisdiction to entertain or try such suits. The first of these decisions in point of time is the decision of a Division Bench consisting of Rajadhyaksha and Vyas JJ. in Ranchhodlal Maneklal v. Maneklal 56 Bom. L. R. 962. There the Division Bench was concerned with a decree passed by the Third Joint Civil Judges Sr. Dn. Ahmedabad in a suit filed in ejectment by the landlord. The first of these decisions in point of time is the decision of a Division Bench consisting of Rajadhyaksha and Vyas JJ. in Ranchhodlal Maneklal v. Maneklal 56 Bom. L. R. 962. There the Division Bench was concerned with a decree passed by the Third Joint Civil Judges Sr. Dn. Ahmedabad in a suit filed in ejectment by the landlord. The suit was filed in 1945 and during the pendency of the suit the Act of 1947 was enacted and by virtue of sec. 50 of the Act. this particular suit which was pending in the said Court was to be transferred to and continued before the Court which would have jurisdiction to try such suits or proceedings under the newly enacted Act and all the provisions of the newly enacted Act and the rules made thereunder were to apply to all such pending suits and proceedings. The Division Bench considered the provisions of sec. 28 of the Act and it came to the conclusion that by reason of the provisions of sec. 50 of the Act. the suit which was pending before the Civil Judge. Senior Division Ahmedabad had to he transferred to the Civil Judge Junior Division who alone had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the suit under sec. 28 of the Act. The Division Bench pointed out that the requisite transfer was not made. The suit ultimately came to be disposed of by the Third Joint Civil Judge suit by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad was without jurisdiction and therefore the Division Bench set aside the decree of the lower court and sent the case back for trial by the appropriate Court and after the amendment of 1949. which added cl. (aa) to sec. 28 (1) of the Act it was the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad which was the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. It is true that in that case it was held that under sec. 28 of the Act the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division having jurisdiction in the area and the powers of the Joint Civil Judges. Senior Division or Junior Division who have been appointed under sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act to assist such principal Judge and this point was not considered by that Division Bench. 28 of the Act the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division having jurisdiction in the area and the powers of the Joint Civil Judges. Senior Division or Junior Division who have been appointed under sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act to assist such principal Judge and this point was not considered by that Division Bench. It is clear therefore that so far as this particular point was concerned the decision of the Division Bench was coram non-judice. It is true as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Mahadeolal v. Administrator General of West Bengal A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 936 Jaisri v. Rajdewan A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 83 and Somawanti v. State of Punjab. A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 151 that a single Judge of a High Court is bound by the decision of a Division Bench and if the point which has arisen for decision by the principle of the Latin maxim coram non-judice is equally clear and what is referred to sometimes as the principle of sub silentio would also apply and since the point was never considered by the previous Division Bench in Ranchhodlals case (supra) its decision would not bind me as Division Bench held that the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction under sec. 28 of the Act to entertain and try a suit referred to in sec. 23 of the Act but in the absence of any consideration of the powers of Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad and the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division or Junior Division Ahmedabad under the scheme of the Bombay Civil Courts Act the decision of the Division Bench with respect is not binding on me. ( 14 ) THE other decision on which reliance was placed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners was the decision of a Division Bench consisting of Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) and Gokhale J. in Civil Revision Application No. 751 of 1955 (Natvarlal v. Kanaiyalal ). ( 14 ) THE other decision on which reliance was placed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners was the decision of a Division Bench consisting of Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) and Gokhale J. in Civil Revision Application No. 751 of 1955 (Natvarlal v. Kanaiyalal ). decided on April 6 1956 What happened in that case was that a suit for obtaining certain reliefs under the Act was filed as a Special Jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 54 of 1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda and in that suit a preliminary issue was raised whether the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda to whom the suit was transferred had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of sec. 28 of the Act. The learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division tried the issue as a preliminary issue and held that the suit be struck off from the file of Special Jurisdiction Civil Suits and it should be numbered as a Regular Civil Suit and it should be sent to the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda for being proceeded with in accordance with law. Against this judgment and order there was a Revision Application being Civil Revision Application No. 751 of 1955 and the Division Bench by its judgment dated April 6 1956 disposed of that Civil Revision Application. In that Civil Revision Application it was urged that the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda had no power to transfer the suit on his file to the Civil Judge Junior Division at Baroda and in that context it was held that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ranchhodlal P. Mahendrakumar 58 Bom. L. R. 465 the District Judge Baroda had the power to transfer suits pending in any Court subordinate to him under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Division Beach observed that the District Judge could havetransferred the suit from one Judge to another and the High Court also could do it. Then the Division Bench has observed as follows:there is no doubt that on the merits the suit could be tried by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) attached to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division ). Then the Division Bench has observed as follows:there is no doubt that on the merits the suit could be tried by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) attached to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division ). The only contention is that the procedure adopted by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) in bringing about this result is irregular. In our opinion the irregularity if any could be easily set right by our directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to try the suit and that is the order we propose to make in the interests of justicein this decision of the Division Bench in Civil Revision Application No. 751 of 1955 the Division Bench has not considered the question regarding the powers of the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda and the powers of the Joint Civil Judges Senior Division or Junior Division appointed to assist the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda for disposal of civil matters on his file under the provisions of sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. The point which had arisen before the Division Bench was whether the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division could have transferred the matter which had been referred to him for disposal to another Judge also joint with him though with Junior Division powers and recognizing that an irregularity had been committed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda in straightway transferring the suit from his file to the file of another Civil Judge viz Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda the Division Bench set that irregularity right. Under these circumstances it is clear that the decision in Civil Revision Application No. 751 of 1955 will not be of assistance to me in the disposal of the point which has arisen for decision before me. ( 15 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the words Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) occurring in sec. 28 (1) (b) mean the place at which the Civil Judge Junior Division posted at Baroda holds his sittings and for this purpose reliance was placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court. ( 15 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the words Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) occurring in sec. 28 (1) (b) mean the place at which the Civil Judge Junior Division posted at Baroda holds his sittings and for this purpose reliance was placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court. The first of these decisions is the decision in Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank A. I. R. 1950 S. C. 188 and at page 195 of the report Mahajan J. has pointed out that the word Court originally meant the Kings Palace but subsequently acquired the meaning of (1) a place where justice was administered and (2) the person or persons who administer it. In the context of sec. 28 of the Act it can only mean the place where the Civil Judge Junior Division administers justice and the second meaning qua the person or persons with the Court will not have any applicability to this particular section. In Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain (1955) 2 S. C. R. 955 at page 961 Bhagwati J. delivering the judgment of Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the word Court occurring in the Contempts of Courts Act 1952 There the Supreme Court was considering the distinction between an ordinary Court of the country and judicial or quasi-judicial Tribunals and this decision based on the distinction between an ordinary Court and judicial or quasi-judicial Court is not of assistance to me in deciding the point which has arisen before me. ( 16 ) IN the light of the discussion set out above regarding the scheme of sec. 23 Bombay Civil Courts Act it is clear that the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda had and has jurisdiction to entertain and try suits arising under sec. 28 of the Act and all the Joint Civil Judges either Senior Division or Junior Division posted at Baroda have co-extensive and co-equal jurisdiction with the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda to dispose of all such suits under sec. 28 as may be referred to them either by the principal Judge of that Court or by-the District Judge exercising powers either under sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act or sec. 28 as may be referred to them either by the principal Judge of that Court or by-the District Judge exercising powers either under sec. 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act or sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 17 ) THE result therefore is that the conclusion reached by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division that he had jurisdiction to try the suit was correct but the reasoning which has appealed to me was not the reasoning which appealed to the learned trial Judge. I do not consider the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge to be the correct reasoning but ultimately the conclusion is the same. ( 18 ) THE result therefore is that both these Civil Revision Applications fail and they are dismissed. The costs of these Civil Revision Applications to be costs in the respective suit before the learned trial Judge. The rule is discharged in each matter. Revisions dismissed. .