( 1 ) THIS matter has come up before us on a reference made by Venkataramiah J, by his order dt. 8th May 1974 which reads as follows :" The petition is referred to a Division Bench for hearing since i da not agree with the decision in CRP. 1430 of 1969. " ( 2 ) OS. 369 of 1973 filed by respondent 1 in the Court of the Munsiff at Belgaum was allocated by the Principal Munsiff to the III Addl Munsiff. Sri A. A. Hulageri who was the III Addl Munsiff granted an ad interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant filed her objections and prayed for vacating the exparte interim order. Thereafter sri A. A. Hulageri was transferred as II Addl Munsiff of the same Court by the order of the High Court d|. 17-1-1974. The High Court directed the Dist Judge of Bedgaum to make in-charge arrangements till a successor takes charge of the post of the III Addl Munsiff of the Court of the munsiff at Belgaum. Accordingly the Dist Judge directed Sri A. A. Hulageri, ii Addl Munsiff, Belgaum, to be incharge of the post of III addl Munsiff, Belgaum, also. It is thereafter that Sri A. A. Hulageri took up for consideration IA.-I and the objections filed against the exparte interim order of injunction. After hearing both the parties, he made the ad interim order of injunction absolute in respect of land S. No,657 (4) to the extent of 7 acres and 30 guntas and vacated the same in respect of lands R. S. No,658 (5) and R. S. No. 657 (4) excluding 7 acres and 30 guntas. This order was made by Sri A. A. Hulageri on 8th April 1974 as " II Addl Munsiff, belgaum, I/c III Additional Munsiff, Belgaum". Against that order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Court of the Civil judge at Belgaum. The Principal Civil Judge of Belgaum by his order made in M. A. 25 of 1974 dt. 20th April 1974 allowed the appeal, set asid,e the ordor made by Sri A. A. Hulageri on 8-4-1974 and remitted the case to the Court of first instance with a direction to dispose of I. A. I -expeditiously. The Principal Civil Judge of Belgaum by his order made in M. A. 25 of 1974 dt. 20th April 1974 allowed the appeal, set asid,e the ordor made by Sri A. A. Hulageri on 8-4-1974 and remitted the case to the Court of first instance with a direction to dispose of I. A. I -expeditiously. He made it clear "that if no Officer is posted as III Addl Munsiff, Belgaum, then the parties are at liberty to move the Dist Judge, Belgaum, to transfer the case to any of the Munsiffs working at Belgaum. It is this order of the Civil judge that is Challenged by the 1st defirndant in this revision petition. ( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge has set aside the order of Sri A. A. Hulageri solely on the ground that he, as the in-charge III Addl Munsiff, had no jurisdiction to pass any orders in OS. 369 of 1973 which was on the file of the III Addl Munsiff Belgaum. He has held that by virtue, of the order made by the Dist Judge, under S. 26 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter reforrered to as 'the Act'), Sri A. A. Hulageri, II Addl Munsiff, belgaum, could only perform such duties of the III Addl Munsiff, belgaum, as are speicified in S. 25 of the Act. For this conclusion. he, has relied upon the judgment of Jagannatha Shetty; J,, in Sakharam Ramachandra v. Allisaheb hasansahab, CRP. 1430/69 dt. 4-12-1970. . See. 25 of the Act provides thus:" In the event of the dearth of the Dist Judge, or of his being prevented from performing his duties by illness or other easualty, or of his absence on leave from the station in which his Court is held, the senior Addl Dist Judge or the Addl Dist Judge, as the case may be, or if there be no Addl Dist Judge, the senior Civil Judge of the Dist shall, without interruption to his ordinary duties, assume charge of the office of the District Court and while so in charge perform the duties of the District Judge with respect to the -filing of suits and appeals, receiving pleadings, execution of processes, return of writs and the like; and shall continue in charge of the said Dist Court until the same is resumed by a Judge duly appointed thereto. " (underlining italics is ours) sec. " (underlining italics is ours) sec. 26 of the Act provides thus :" In the event of death, suspension or temporary absence of any civil Judge or Munsiff, the Dist Judge may empower the Judge of anv subordinate Court in the District to perform such duties of such Civil judge or Munsiff, as are specified in Sec. 25,. . . . . . . . "it is clear from S. 26 read with S. 25 of the Act that the Civil Judge or the munsiff empowered by the Dist Judge under Sec. 26 of the Act can perform only such duties of the Civil Judge or Munsiff as are specified in sec. 25 of the Act. They are with respect to filing of suits and. appeals, receiving pleadings, execution of processes, return of writs and the like. The expression ' and the like means other functions similar to those expressly specified earlier. The Civil Judge or the Munsiff empowered, under sec. 26 of the Act cannot exercise any other powers including the power of deciding cases under the CPC or under any other enactment. It is therefore clear that the order passed by Sri Hulageri cannot be sustained on the ground that he was clothed with the necessary power to decide the case by the order made by the Dist Jadge under S. 26 of the "act. ( 4 ) THE principal question that arises for consideration in this case as to whether the II Addl Munsiff of the Munsiff's Court of Belgume had otherwise jurisdiction to hear and dispose of I. A.-I filed in the. suit even though the order of the 'dist Judge made under "sec. 26 of the Act, did not confer such jurisdiction. ( 5 ) SEC. 99 CPC provides that no decree Shall be. reversed or substainttally varied, nor shall any case be, remanded in appeal. on account of any misjoinder of parties or causes of action or any error,. defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits. . of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court As held by the "privy Council in Muhammad husain Khan v. Babu Kishva, AIR 1937 PC. 233. the rule embodied in S. 99 CPC is a sound principle calculated to promote justice. In view of S. 108. CPC, s. 99 CPC also governs appeals against orders. . of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court As held by the "privy Council in Muhammad husain Khan v. Babu Kishva, AIR 1937 PC. 233. the rule embodied in S. 99 CPC is a sound principle calculated to promote justice. In view of S. 108. CPC, s. 99 CPC also governs appeals against orders. When the Court has 'decided the case on merits and an order is passed, it is not liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds unless the error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings has affected the merits of the case, or the jurisdiction of the Court. It is in. the light of the provisions of S. 99 CPC that we have to examine whether the Civil Judge was justified in reversing the order in question in this case. 'presumably on. the ground that the II Addl Munsiff committed an error in contravening the order "passed by the Dist Judge under Sep. 26 of the Act. ( 6 ) THE question then to be examined is as to what is the jurisdiction of the, several Munsiffs -when more than one Munsiff is appointed to the, same- Court. ( 7 ) SEC. 7 of the. Act provide, that there shall be. in each Dist such number of Munsiffs' Courts as may be fixed by the, State Govt in consultation with the, High Court, and thae each Munsiff's Court shall be presided over by ,a Munstff. S. 8 of the Act empowers the State Govt to fix, in consultation with the Hgh Court, the number of Munsiffs to be appointed for a Munsiff's Court. S. 9 of the Act provides for distribution of work when mare than one Judge is. appointed to a Court. The, said section reads thus: 9. Distribution of work when more than one Judge is appointed to a Court:-" (1) When more than one. Civil Judge is appointed to the court of a Civil Judge, or more than one Munsiff is appointed to a munsiff's Count, one, of the Civil Judges or one of the Munsitts, shall be appointed as the Principal Civil Judge or the Principal Munsiff and the others Addl Civil Judges ,or Addl Munsiffs, as the, case may be. (2 ). Each of. the Judges appointed to the Court of a Civil Judge or a Munsiff'-s Court. may exercise,. (2 ). Each of. the Judges appointed to the Court of a Civil Judge or a Munsiff'-s Court. may exercise,. all or any of the powers conferred on such Court by the Act any. or any law for the time being in force. (3) Subject to the general or special -orders of the Dist Judge, the Principal. Civil. Judge or the Principal Munsiff may, from time to lime make such arrangemeits 'as he thinks fit, for the distribution ol the business of the Court. a mong. the various Civil Judges or Munsiffs thereof. "it is seen from. sub sec (1) of S. 9 of the Act-that when, more than one Munsiff. is appointed to the Court ofthe Munsiff, one of the Munsiffs shall be appoiteed as the Principal 'munsiff and the otheors as Additional Munsiffs. It. is clear from sub sec. (2) that each, of the Judges-appointed to the Court of a Munsiff mayexercise or any of the power conferred on such Court by the Act or anys other law for the time befor in force. It. is manifest. . from sub section (3) that- the Principal Munsiff is empowerd to make arrengment for the distibution of the business of of the. Court, among the ,various ,munsiff's of the said Court subject, however, to the general, pr special order of the Dist. Judge The territorial jurisdiction of the court of the Munsiff is determined by S. 13 of the Act and the picunary Juridication is regulated by S. 17 of the Act the Act. When more than. one Munsiff is appointed to the Court of a,munsiff, each. Munsiff does not. constitute a seprate court. The Caurt is one though there are more than one Judicial officer supprinted to the same court. It is precisely for this reason that provision. is made in sub sec (3) of S. 9 for the distribution ot the business of the Court among the various Munsiffs appointed to the court Once a Munsiff is appointed to a. Court he becomes entitled to exercies the powers of such Court conferred by the Act, orany other law for the time being in force in view of sub-sec. (2) of. S. 9 of the. Act; What is contemplated in sub-sec (3) of Sec. 9 is. the. (2) of. S. 9 of the. Act; What is contemplated in sub-sec (3) of Sec. 9 is. the. arrangement distribution of the bussiness of the court amongs the Civil Judge or the 'munsiffs of the, conecrned Courts and who are by law empowered to exercise all the powers of that Court. It, is hencq impossible to hold that the'principal civil Judge of th,q Principal Munsiff as the case may be confers jurisdiction by the process of allocation of work. If the mention of the Legislature was that the Addl Munsiffs should exercisa powers conferred on the Court by the act or any other law only in respect of matters assigned to them by the Principal Munsiff, there snould have been an express provision to that effect. In this connection, it is necessary to compare the, provisions of S. 5 of the Act. Sub-sec (l) of S. 5 of the Act provides for appointment of Addl Diat Judges to a Dist Court. Sub-sec (2) of Sep. 5 reads as follows :" The Addl Dist Judge so appointed shall, subject to the general or special orders of the High Court, discharge all or any of the functions of th e Dist Judge under this Act, or any otherr law for the time being in force, which the Dist Judge may assign to him, and in the discharge of those functions, he shall exercise the same powers as the district Judge," (underlining italics is ours) it is clear from sub-sec (2) of S. 5 that an Addl Dist Judge appointed to a dist Court can exercise the functions of the Dist Judgq under the; Act or any other law for the time being in force only in regard to matters assigned to. him by the Dist Judge. the assignment of certain functions by the dist Judge is a prerequisite for the Addl Dist Judge, to discharge all or any of the functions of the Dist Judge under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. A legislative pattern similar to the one contained in S. 5 of the Act can also be from the provisions of S. 194 of Crlpc, 1973 which provides thus :"194. A legislative pattern similar to the one contained in S. 5 of the Act can also be from the provisions of S. 194 of Crlpc, 1973 which provides thus :"194. An Addl Sessions Judge or Asst Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the division may, by general or special order, make over to him for trial or as the High Cpurt may, by special order, direct him to try. "this provision is substantially similar to S. 5 of the Act. The difference in the language employed by the Legislature in 3s. 5 and 9 of the Act is significant. It clearly indicates that whereas the Addl Civil Judges and addl Munsiffs become entitled to exercise all or any of thq powers conferred on such Court by the Act or any other law for the time being in force on their appointment as Addl Civil Judges or Addl Munsiffs to such courts, the Addl Dist Judge appointed to a Dist Court becomes entitled to do so only in regard to such functions as are assigned to him by the Dist judge. Therefore, we are clearly of opinion that S. 9 (3) of the Act is not a provision which contemplates conferment of jurisdiction or power by' the Principal Civil Judge or the Principal Munsiff on -the Addl Civil' judges or the Addl Munsiffs of the Courts concerned. If by mistake or inadvertence an Addl Munsiff decides a case pending in the Court of which he is an Addl Munsiff, but not- allocated to him by the Principal munsiff, his decision is still the decision of the Court of the Munsiff and cannot be regarded as one passed without jurisdiction. ( 8 ) NOW coming to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed' that Sri A. A. Hulageri made the final order on I. A.-I after hearing both the parties. None of the parties raised any objections "before him to the effect that he being the II Addl Munsiff had no jurisdiction to hear I. A,-I in the suit which was allocated by the Principal Munsiff to the III Addl munsiff of the said Court. . ( 9 ) WHEN the allocation of the work is made under sub-sec (3) of s. 9 of the Act, the same, must be respected and followed. . ( 9 ) WHEN the allocation of the work is made under sub-sec (3) of s. 9 of the Act, the same, must be respected and followed. As this case was not assigned to the II Addl Munsiff, it was not proper for him to, decide it. If there is any difficulty, the Principal Munsiff can suitably modify the allusion of work. As long as the allocation of the work mads by the Principal munsiff stands, it is the duty of the; Addl Munsiffs to abide by the same. But it on account of mistake or inadvertence an Addl Munsiff hears and decides a case pending in the same Court but not allocated to him, the appellate Court will not be justified in reversing the said decision on the ground that there has been an infraction of the order of allocation made by the Principal Munsiff, unless the error committed by the Addl munsiff has either affected the merits Of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. We have already held that deciding of a case pending in the Court of the Munsiff by an Addl Munsiff of the same Court not allocated to him is only an irregularity not affecting the) jurisdiction. It therefore follows that the final order made by the II Addl Munsiff in this case on I. A.-I cannot be regarded as one made without jurisdiction. It is impossible to take the view that the, error commitited by the II Addl Munsiff has affected the merits of the; case. Both the parties had placed all the. relevant material before the Court and were heard by the learned Munsiff. It is after considering the relevant material and the arguments that the learned Munsiff has passed a considered order. As the error committed by the II Addl Munsiff in deciding the case not assigned to him has not affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court, the learned civil Judge; was clearly in error in reversing the, order of the II Addl munsiff ignoring the salutary principles contained in S. 99 of the CPC. ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding we must deal with the decision in Sakharam's case (1) referred to in the order of reference;. ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding we must deal with the decision in Sakharam's case (1) referred to in the order of reference;. In that case a suit which was on the file of the Munsiff was dealt with by the Addl Munsiff when the principal Munsiff was on leave. After examining the scope of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Act, it was held that the Addl Munsiff had no jurisdiction to deal with the case which was not allotted to him by the Principal Munsiff. Consequently the decision of the Addl Munsiff was reversed. The question as to whether the order of the Addl Munsiff was within jurisdiction having regard to the provisions of Sec. 9 of thq Act was npt considered in that case. The provisions of S. 99 CPC were not also invoked. So far as the interpretation of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Act is concerned, we agree win the view taken in Sakharam's case (l ). But Sakharam's case (1) cannot be regarded as laying down correct law about the validity of an order made by the Addl Munsiff contrary to the allocation of business made under the provisions of sub-sec (3) of Sec. 9 of the Act and the scope of interference with such order. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Miscellaneous Appeal no. 25 of 1974 is set aside and that of the II Addl Munsiff, Belgaum, dated 8th April 1974, made on I. A.-I in Original Suit No. 369 of 1973 is restored. No costs. --- *** --- .