Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 308 (DEL)

STATE BANK OF INDIA v. O. P. GUPTA

1982-11-03

D.K.KAPUR, S.RANGANATHAN

body1982
D. K. Kapur,j. ( 1 ) THE State Bank of India filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52,357. 51 based on cash credit facilities granted to the defendants-respondents. The said defendants had also deposited the title deeds in respect of house property No. 87, Dholi Piao, Mathura allegedly for the purpose of furnishing a guarantee as collateral security for the advance. This suit was decided on the Original Side of this Court. ( 2 ) FOLLOWING the Division Bench of this Court in Suit No. 51 of 1968, State. Bank of India v. Himalayan Exporters and another, decided on 20th November, 1970, it was held by the learned Single Judge that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff has appealed and the learned counsel has pressed that this matter should be placed before a larger Bench for re-considering the decision of the Division Bench aforementioned. We have carefully considered the contention and we find no reason to differ from the judgment of the said Division Bench. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary to set out the point at any great length because the said judgment has fully analysed the conclusion. However, as brought to our notice by learned counsel for the appellant, the said judgment is not reported and so it is necessary, in our view, to set out the point in short so that the view of this Court may be fully known as far as the jurisdiction question is concerned. ( 5 ) SECTION 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in the following terms :- "120. Provisions not applicable to High Court in original Civil jurisdiction :- The following provisions shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction namely, Sections 16, 17 and 20. "it so happens that Section 16 is the provision on which indicates the jurisdiction for dealing with suits relating to immovable property. It is stated therein that all suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of mortgage or charge upon immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. If the Section applies, the suit has to be filed at Mathura and nowhere and now- where also. It is stated therein that all suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of mortgage or charge upon immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. If the Section applies, the suit has to be filed at Mathura and nowhere and now- where also. ( 6 ) IN the Chartered High Courts which were granted Original Side Jurisdiction by the Letters Patent which created them, there is a special clause indicating the limits of the Original Side Jurisdiction. That clause is Clause 12. In other High Courts which were not created by the Letters Patent, or where the Letters Patent did not give the Court Original Side jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suits is not set out either in the Letters Patent or in any other law. In the case of the Delhi High Court, the Original Jurisdiction was granted to the Court by the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The only provision relating to the scope of the same is provided by Section 12) of the Act which states :- "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 rupees one lakh. the sum of Rs. l,00,000. 00 was originally Rs. 25,000. 00 which was raised to Rs. 50,000. 00 and then to Rs. l,00,000. 00. At the time this suit was being tried, the value was Rs. 50,000. 00. This Section does not grant the Delhi High Court any further jurisdiction than that which is set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. If we hold that Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code do not apply to the High Court, then we have no alternative provision to fall back upon , In the case of the Chartered High Courts, and it may be in the case of other High Courts which are created by Statute, the limits of the jurisdiction may be varied from those set out in Sections, 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a case there will be an inconsistency between the provisions of the Code and those of the Letters Patent or any other law creating that High Court. In such a case there will be an inconsistency between the provisions of the Code and those of the Letters Patent or any other law creating that High Court. For this reason, the provisions of Section 120 have been enacted to state that the said Sections 16, 17 and 20 would not apply io the Original Side of the High Court. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, if there is no other provision, then these Sections have to apply because otherwise the Court will find itself with no ascertainable method for determining its Original jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THERE were several decisions of this Court even prior to the Stale Bank of India v. Himalayan Exporters and another, decided by the Division Bench on 20th November, 1970, which took the view that as no provision corresponding to clause 12 of the Chartered High Courts had been made in respect of the Delhi High Court and there was no provision in the Delhi High Court, Act, 1966, regarding the scope of the original Jurisdiction, hence. Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code had to be applied to the Court. ( 9 ) IT was held by B. C. Misra J. in Union of India v. Biasdev and another Suit No. 377 of 167, decided on 19th October, 1970, that the principles of Sections 16, 17 and 20 had to be applied. In other cases it was taken for granted that these Sections had to apply otherwise) the Court would be unable to find when it had jurisdiction and when it had not. Subsequently, any number of suits have been decided in this Court on the footing that Section 20 particularly does apply as otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court could not be ascertained. ( 10 ) MOREOVER, the Original Side Rules have specifically provided that where ever the Rules are silent, the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. The provisions of Section 129 of the Code state as follows ;- "129. Powers of Chartered High Courts to make rules as to their original civil procedure. ( 10 ) MOREOVER, the Original Side Rules have specifically provided that where ever the Rules are silent, the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. The provisions of Section 129 of the Code state as follows ;- "129. Powers of Chartered High Courts to make rules as to their original civil procedure. Notwithstanding anything in this Code, any High Court, not being the Court of 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 excercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, the validity of any such rules in force at the commencement of this Code. "this provision enables the High Court to make rules relating to original side proceedings. Assuming that the learned counsel is right in contending that Sections 16, 17 and 20 do not apply and there is no other provision relating to the jurisdiction of the Court on the Original Side, then it will be open for the High Court to make rules relating to the scope of that jurisdiction. The High Court has made a rule. It has stated that where ever the rules are silent. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Rule 19, Chapter I of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules is in the following terms :- "19. Miscellaneous: Except to the extent otherwise provided in these rules) the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply to all proceedings on original side. "thus, as there is nothing in the rules relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court on the Original Side and there is nothing in the provisions of the Letters Patent or the Delhi High Court Act, the provisions of Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code would apply by the application of the above Original Side Rule. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, we would follow the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench and hold that the learned Single Judge was right in corning to the conclusion that this Court had no jurisdiction and the plaint was rightly directed to be returned to the plaintiff. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but we make no order as to costs.