JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J.—"Whether sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to this High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction ?" is the question referred to this Bench. It has arisen in Civil Suits Nos. 7 of 1976, 28 of 1976 and 40 of 1979. 2. The first suit has been registered on the basis of an application made under section 20 of the Arbitration Act requesting the Court to refer the dispute for arbitration in terms of a contract entered into between the parties. An objection has been raised that since the respondents neither personally reside nor work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court so it has no jurisdiction to try the application. It is contended that section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to this Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. 3. The second suit is for the recovery of Rs. 12,25,218-94 for the supply of resin to the defendants. Since the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the suit was filed here. The defendant submits that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the registered office of the defendant is located in Calcutta and section 20 CPC is not applicable. 4. The third suit is for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property. The suit has been filed in this Court because "substantial part of the property is situated within the local limits of jurisdiction to this Honble Court and this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit." The defendant contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit "as all the agricultural properties are situated in Punjab and Haryana which are all outside the jurisdiction of this Honble Court and no declaration can be given by the Honble Court regarding the agricultural and other properties situated outside the jurisdiction of this Honble Court excepting one house known as Kenilworth Simla in which plaintiff No. 1 above claims the ownership and not other plaintiffs." This contention is based on the reason that sections 16 and 17 CPC do not apply. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Chhabil Dass contends that section 120 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically lays down that sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code shall not apply to the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction and, there tore, jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of these sections. He submits that the only jurisdiction which this Court has in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction is on account of section 19 of the Code as well as the common law jurisdiction which the courts in this country have inherited. He further submits that under the common law the courts could entertain a suit and could grant relief only if the defendant was residing within the jurisdiction of the court or the property in dispute was so situated. Cause of action, according to the learned counsel, cannot give jurisdiction to a court unless the statute specifically so provides. 6. Before the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, the High Court of Punjab had jurisdiction over Punjab and the Union Territory of Delhi. Himachal Pradesh had the Court of a Judicial Commissioner/ The Delhi High Court was created by the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (No. 20 of 1966) on 5th September, 1966. The reorganisation of the State of Punjab resulted into the creation of the present State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the State of Himachal Pradesh. By section 17 of the Delhi High Court Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi was extended to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, received the assent of the President of India on 25th December, 1970. Amongst others, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh came into existence by virtue of section 21 of this Act. 7. Section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act laid down the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. It reads as under;— "5. (1) The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union territory of Delhi, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab. (1) The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union territory of Delhi, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds twenty-five thousand rupees." 8. Section 16 provided for transfer of proceedings pending before Subordinate Courts in Delhi to the High Court of Delhi. It is in the following terms;— "16. All proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day in any subordinate court in the Union territory of Delhi in or in relation to any such civil suit as is referred to in sub-section (2) of section 5 shall on that day stand transferred to the High Court of Delhi which shall proceed to try, hear and determine the matter as if it had been pending therein." 9. At this stage it may be noticed that except the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras no other High Court in India had been given the ordinary original civil jurisdiction. These High Courts were given the original civil jurisdiction by the Letters Patent. For the first time it was decided to grant original civil jurisdiction to Delhi High Court in view of the heavy civil litigation pending in the courts of Delhi. The object apparently was that the suits whose value exceeded 25,000/- rupees (later on raised to Rs. 50,000/-) should not be allowed to be decided by the Subordinate Courts. 10. It will be noticed that sub-section (2) of section 5 did not lay down any limitation on the jurisdiction of the High Court to try suits in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction if the value of the suit exceeded rupees 2i,000/. By virtue of section 16 the proceedings pending in or in relation to civil suits whose value was more than 25,000/- rupees stood automatically transferred to the High Court. The High Court was enjoined upon to proceed to try and decide these matters as if these had been pending in the High Court. By virtue of section 16 the proceedings pending in or in relation to civil suits whose value was more than 25,000/- rupees stood automatically transferred to the High Court. The High Court was enjoined upon to proceed to try and decide these matters as if these had been pending in the High Court. In other words, it is apparent that the erstwhile jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts to try suits of the value exceeding rupees 25,003/- was being transferred to the High Court of Delhi. 11. An effort has been made by Mr. Chhabil Dass to suggest a dichotomy. He contends that no doubt under section 16 the erstwhile jurisdiction of the subordinate courts to try civil suits of the value exceeding rupees 25,000/- was being transferred to the High Court, but the High Court was not being given the jurisdiction to try a fresh suit the value of which exceeded rupees 25,000/-if the jurisdiction of the Court was sought to be invoked with reference to sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil -Procedure. We are afraid we cannot agree. After laying down that the High Court shall have in respect of the Union Territory of Delhi ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit whose value exceeds rupees 25,000/-and thus taking away the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts to that extent, the litigants were not to be left without remedy. For example, if a foreigner after entering into a contract at Delhi leaves India, then he cannot be sued in India in respect of that contract because no court in India will have the jurisdiction to try the suit; and the High Court of Delhi in whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen will also be debarred from trying it. In our opinion the words "every suit" appearing in sub-section (2) of section 5 leave no doubt that jurisdiction was not being limited in any manner whatsoever. 12. Moreover, we see no distinction between the suits which were pending in the subordinate courts at the time of the commencement of the Delhi High Court Act and those which were to be instituted later on. It may be noticed that under section 16 only those suits were required to be transferred to the High Court of Delhi which fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act. It may be noticed that under section 16 only those suits were required to be transferred to the High Court of Delhi which fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act. It may also be noticed at this stage that section 19 of this Act amended the law specified in the schedule in the manner and from the date specified therein. One of the amendments made in the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, in force in the Union Territory of Delhi is as follows:— "(i) In section 25, for the words in original civil suits without limit as regards the value, the words in every original civil suit the value of which does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees shall be substituted ; 13. A similar, amendment was made in the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order 1948, by clauses (iii) and (iv)- Thus the Pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate courts was reduced to rupees 25,000/- only. 14. Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act empowered the High Court of Delhi, amongst others, "to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure for the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The High Court of Delhi in exercise of these powers as well as in the exercise f Power conferred by section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure framed the “Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967". Rule 19 of Chapter I provided: “except to the extent otherwise provided in these rules, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply to all proceedings on original side.” 5. Sections I3 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, lays down under the jurisdiction of the High Court Himachal Pradesh. It reads as under:- "23. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh shall have, in respect of any part of the territories comprised in the State of Himachal .Pradesh, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, are exercisable in respect^ of that part of the said territories by the High Court of Delhi. Section 25 of this Act lays down as under: ; "25. Section 25 of this Act lays down as under: ; "25. Subject to the provisions of this Part, the law in force immediately before the appointed day with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Delhi shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh." 16. It is not in dispute that by virtue of these sections the provisions of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, alongwith rule 19 of Chapter I, are applicable to this High Court. 17. We may now notice the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 120 falls under Part IX of the Code. The heading of this Part is; “Special Provisions relating to the High Courts not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner.” This Part consists of five sections, that is, sections 116 to 120. Section 117 lays down that save as provided in this Fart or in Part X or in rules, the provisions of this Code shall apply to such High Courts Part X of this Code relates to rules. It consists of sections 125 to 131. Sections 122 to 128 relate to the powers of the High Court to make rules. Section 129 specially empowers the High Courts to make rules as to their original civil procedure. This section is in the following words:— "Notwithstanding anything in this Code, any High Court not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner may make such rules not inconsistent with the Letters Patent or order or other law establishing it to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing herein contained shall affect the validity of any such rules in force at the commencement of this Code." 18. It is a non obstante clause. It over-rides all provisions of the Code limiting the powers of the High Court to make rules. The only limitation imposed on the powers of the High Court to make rules is that these should not be inconsistent with the law establishing the High Court. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the rules made by the High Court are a "special law" : The Union of India and another v. Ram Kanwar and others, IAIR 1962 Supreme Court 247] ; Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lahore v. Official Liquidators, Punjab Cotton Press Co. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the rules made by the High Court are a "special law" : The Union of India and another v. Ram Kanwar and others, IAIR 1962 Supreme Court 247] ; Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lahore v. Official Liquidators, Punjab Cotton Press Co. Ltd. {in Liquidation) and others, [MR 1941 Lahore 257], and MungaraVenkatermaniah and others v. Vudata Subbramayya, lAIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 245]. These rules are also saved by section 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The relevant part of this section reads thus;— "4. (1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special .form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force." 19. It may be repeated that the rules framed under section 129 can be inconsistent with the body of the Code. 20. It may be noticed that when the presidency High Courts were created by Royal Charter, clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which is similar to sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defined the jurisdiction of the High Courts, The Letters Patent were granted on the 26th day of June, 1862. Application of sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 became superfluous. In these circumstances section 120(1) came to be enacted. It must be remembered that though section 120 (1) provided that sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, the High Courts were exercising similar jurisdiction in view of clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The practice was thus established that the High Courts were exercising their original civil jurisdiction in the same manner in which the subordinate courts were exercising. The only difference was in the pecuniary jurisdiction. This practice continued for more than a century when the Delhi High Court was constituted in 1966 and was conferred the ordinary original civil jurisdiction without any limitation (sub-section (2) of section 5). It was thus not the intendment of the Legislature, as already discussed, to limit this jurisdiction. The only difference was in the pecuniary jurisdiction. This practice continued for more than a century when the Delhi High Court was constituted in 1966 and was conferred the ordinary original civil jurisdiction without any limitation (sub-section (2) of section 5). It was thus not the intendment of the Legislature, as already discussed, to limit this jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Madras State v M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co., {Madras) Ltd., [AIR 1958 SC], observed thus:— "The ratio of the rule of interpretation that words of legal import occurring in a statute should be construed in their legal sense is that those words have, in law, acquired a definite and precise sense, and that, accordingly, the Legislature must be taken to have intended that they should be understood in that sense. In interpreting an expression used in a legal sense, therefore, we have only to ascertain the precise connotation which it possesses in law." 21. We have in the circumstances discussed above no hesitation to hold that the expression "ordinary original civil jurisdiction" has acquired a definite and precise sense in law and that it includes the application of sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code. It was for that reason that no provisions similar to clause 12 of the Letters Patent were framed in the Delhi High Court Act. 22. We find a similar view of the matter was taken in an unreported decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 51 of 1968, State Bank of India v. Himalayan Exporters and another, decided on 20.11.1970. The judgment shows that it had approved a similar view taken by B. C. Misra, J., of that Court in an unreported judgment Union of India v. Bias Dev and another, Suit No. 397 of 1967, decided on October 19, 1970. 23. We may also refer to a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Printpak Machinery Ltd., New Delhi v. M/s. Jay Kay Paper Congeters, [AIR 1979 Delhi 217], where while interpreting section 129 of the Code T. P. S. Chawla, J., observed thus ;— "The cumulative effect of those two parts of the section is to leave untouched the original side rules of a High Court whether framed before or after 1908. Since S, 2 (1) says that the "Code" includes rules, the original side rules will prevail both over the body of the Code and the First Schedule". 24. Mr. Chhabil Dass refers to Article 226 of the Constitution and cites Madan Gopal Rungta v. The Secretary to the Government of Orissa and others, [AIR 1962 SC 1313J, in support of his contention that the pecuniary ordinary original civil jurisdiction exercised by the High Court has no relation to the place where a cause of action has arisen and so did not give jurisdiction to the High Court where the respondent was not residing or carrying on business within the jurisdiction of that court. However, this decision refers to Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India and another, [AIR 1961 SC 532]. A perusal of these decisions show that the decisions were given in the context of Article 226 of the Constitution only and these are no help in construing the present provisions of law with which we are concerned. Mr. Chhabil Dass has also made a reference to the Halsburys Laws of England, Volume 8, page 403, and drawn our attention to the pass-age relating to actions in personam. He has also referred to The Conflicts of Laws" by Cheshire to point out that the jurisdiction of the Courts of Equity and of Common Law was limited to persons residing within the jurisdiction of those courts and, where the dispute was in relation to immovable property, if the property was situated within their jurisdiction. In our opinion these will not be relevant to decide the present question. 25. We would thus answer the question in the affirmative that sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code do apply to this High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. 26. The suits will now go back to the learned Single Judge dealing with the suits.