RADHEY SHAM SAWHNEY Vs. BAWA JOGINDER SINGH BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendants' revision under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, from the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 13/9/1967 disposing of the defendants' objection questioning the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain, try and dispose of the suit under Order 37 of the Code. The Court below repelled the defendants' challenge holding that even after the enforcement of the Delhi High Court Act (No. 2 of 1966), it was competent to entertain the present suit by virtue of the amended Rule of Order 37. The Court below also disposed of by the impugned order the defendants' application for leave to defend the suit. It directed deposit by way of security, by the defendants, of the amount of Rs. 500.00, which was admitted by the defendants to be due to the plaintiff, along with a sum of Rs. 75.00, the estimated costs thereon. In regard to the balance of Rs. 1,200.00 together with costs estimated at Rs. 200.00, the defendants were also directed to furnish security.

(2.) Before me on revision, the first and foremost challenge against the order of the Court below relates to its competence to entertain and proceed with the present suit under Order 37 of the Code. The argument forcefully pressed by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner is that the amendment in Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code, on which reliance has been placed, was made by the High Court of Lahore in 1923 and 1932 and that with the enforcement of the Delhi High Court Act, on 31-10-1966, unless the High Court of Delhi amends Order 37, Rule 1, as originally enacted, with the object of extending the operation of Order 37 to the civil Courts in the Union Territory of Delhi, the Court below could not assume such jurisdiction. Briefly put, the argument is based on the assumption that with the Punjab High Court ceasing to exercise jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Delhi, the amendment which was operative up to 30-10-66, must be deemed automatically to have exhaustive itself and to have died a natural death.

(3.) It is necessary at this stage to reproduce Rule I of Order 37 as amended, which was admittedly in force up to 30/10/1966, and the validity of which up to that date has not been challenged before me. This Order prescribes summary procedure on negotiable instruments and Rule 1 reads as under: