LEELA PALANI Vs. J R MANJUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 12-1-1988 made by the Principal District Judge, Kolar, in Misc. Petition No. 15/1987 on his file.

(2.) The petitioner is the respondent in the Court below. She is aggrieved by the order under revision by which O.S.No. 6/1983 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, K.G.F. is withdrawn to the Court of the District Judge, Kolar, to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law by the latter Court. The facts leading to this petition may be stated briefly and they are as follows: Respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration of the title to their respective shares In the suit schedule property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree she had obtained in HRC.No. 51/1976 as they were not parties to the eviction proceedings and that the order obtained by the defendant therefore would not be binding on them. The plaintiffs also filed an application for interim injunction to restrain execution of the said decree obtained under the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The learned Civil Judge granted the temporary injunction, That was questioned in Appeal M.A.No. 10/1983 before the District Judge by the defendant. She succeeded in the appeal and the temporary injunction was set aside. Aggrieved by that order of the learned District Judge, Kolar, C.R.P.No. 3168/1983 was filed in this Court and that revision petition came to be with drawn, in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner (who was respondent therein) in that revision petition that the Court of the Munsiff which was the proper Court, to execute the eviction order passed under the Karnataka Rent Control Act was not a Court Subordinate to the Court of the Civil Judge at K.G.F. and therefore it was not competent for that Court to entertain O.S. No. 6/1983 muchless issue temporary injunction. The very next day after the withdrawal of the revision petition, O.S.No. 1/1987 was filed in the Court of the Principal District Judge at Kolar with identical prayer for identical relief, on identical allegations as in O.S. No. 6/1983 on the file of the Civil Judge at K.G.F. Soon thereafter a petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. was filed seeking transfer of O.S.No. 6/1983 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge at K.G.F. to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kolar, for being tried and disposed of along with O.S.No. 1/1987 pending in the Court of the District Judge. That petition having been allowed, the present revision petition is preferred against that order of the District Judge.

(3.) Mr. H.R. Venkataramaniah, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has not conferred any original jurisdiction on the District Court and therefore it is not competent to try the suit filed in that Court or by transfer to its file a case from any Court subordinate to it. He also contended that object of Section 24 of the C.P.C. is not meant to serve that purpose. He has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of LAKSHMI NARAIN v. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD AND ORS. AIR1964 SC 489 , [1964 ]1 SCR362 , in the said case certain provisions of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act as well as the provisions of the C.P.C. 1908 fell for consideration. It was held therein that Section 24 of the C.P.C. postulated that the Court to which the suit or appeal or other proceedings was transferred should be competent to try or dispose of the same. After having ruled in that manner with reference to Section 31 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, it was impossible to hold that the District Courts were competent to hear appeals of the valuation of Rs.10,000/- or less in suits decided before the Civil Courts Act came into force and appeals from which were pending before the High Court. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RAJA SOAP FACTORY AND OTHERS v. S.P. SHANTHARAJ AND ORS.. In the said case the Supreme Court considered the question whether during closure of the District Court on account of vacation, the High Court of Mysore was competent to entertain the filing of original suit even though the High Court was at the apex of Civil Courts in the State. The Supreme Court negatived the contention that the erstwhile Mysore High Court could do so on the ground that under the relevant provisions of the Mysore Act 1 of 1884 and Mysore Act 5 of 1962, nor Section 151 of the C.P.C. would confer jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain the original suits as it was not conferred with original jurisdiction by the statutes. That dicta, as pointed out by the learned Counsel, was followed by this Court in the case of K.N. PANJAWANI v. MRS. T.N.K. NAYAR AND ANR. 1983(1) KLJ 529. In Panjawani's case a learned Judge of this Court ruled that the Karnataka High Court is not a Court of ordinary original civil jurisdiction and cannot entertain a suit during Dasara vacation (or the winter vacation), when the City Civil Court and other Civil Courts were closed for the vacation, and no vacation Judge had been appointed for those Courts during the vacation. In the said decision, the learned Judge, reiterated that in terms of Sections 52 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, the new High Court could exercise the jurisdiction which was being exercised by the old Mysore High Court and there being no notification conferring ordinary original jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Mysore Act 1 of 1884, the erstwhile Mysore High Court had no original jurisdiction at all and further that power conferred on the Government under Section 12 of the 1884 Act was repealed by Karnataka Act 5 of 1962 and as such there was no scope for treating the Karnataka High Court as a Court of original jurisdiction.