VASAVA NAROTTAM UNJU Vs. SHAH AMBALAL MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate for the Appellant contended that the learned District Judge, Godhra, who decided the appeal, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. He pointed out that the suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division at Kalol by reason of his having jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the defendant resided at Chandpur within the jurisdiction of the said Court, having regard to Section 20, Clause (a) of the Civil Procedure Code. That Chandpur, according to him, remained no longer within the jurisdiction of either that Court or of the District Court, when appeal against the decision in suit was preferred inasmuch as that village of Chandpur has been transferred from that Division and put into a different Division by reason of a Notification No. CPR 1259/8897/43, published in the Bombay Government Gazette on 15-10-1959 whereby the Government of Bombay, in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 22 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, directed that the authorities specified in column (1) of the schedule to annexure... In Column 1 of the schedule the villages are set out and one of them is Chandpur, a place of residence of the defendant. Thus, according to him, the District Court which decided the appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. In support of his contention, he invited a reference to a case of Allah Del Begam v. Kesri Mal,1906 ILR(All) 93, where it has been held that: "where a certain area is transferred by a Government Notification from the jurisdiction of one District Judge into the jurisdiction of a different District Judge, an appeal preferred after the date on which the notification takes effect must be received and entertained by the District Judge into which jurisdiction the area from which the appeal comes has been transferred." On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate for the respondent that the said Notification in no way takes away the authority or jurisdiction of the District Court, Panchmahals of entertaining an appeal against any decision given by a Court subordinate to it, and therefore, it continues to have the same authority over any such decision till the final termination of that case. Apart from that position, he also contended that having regard to the question of such territorial jurisdiction involving local limits of any particular Court, it has to be considered having regard to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and if no such objection has at all been raised in that respect before the Court passes a decree, it is not permissible to raise any such question in the Court of appeal or revision unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

(2.) In order to consider as to whether the District Court at Godhra was within its powers to hear this appeal, we have to turn to Section 96 of the Civil P. C. which provides that save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code of Civil Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of such Court. We have, therefore, to see whether the District Court, Panchmahals, had an authority to entertain and hear appeals from the decisions of the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalol. Such an authority of the District Court arises out of Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, which provides that except as provided in Sections 16, 17 and 26, the District Court shall be the Court of Appeal from all decrees and orders passed by the subordinate Courts from which an appeal lies under any law for the time being in force. Now it is clear that Sections 16, 17 and 26 do not come in the way and at the same time it is an undisputed fact that in absence of any such notification, dated 15-10-1959 the District Judge at Panchmahals had the authority to entertain and hear the appeal from the decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., at Kalol, which was subordinate to it. But the question is whether that authority or power is affected by the Notification so as to justifiably say that on the day when it was filed, it had no such authority in view of the provisions of any law for the time being in force. In other words was the law at that date so changed as to take oven the authority of the District Court Panchmahals and give the same authority to the District Court, Baroda as urged before this Court?

(3.) Now, the suit was decided by the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Kalol, on 9-10-1959 and the Court had jurisdiction to decide the same. The Notification whereby the village of Chandpur came to be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Kalol to that of Vaghodia, Baroda District, was to take effect from 16-10-1959. The defendant has however preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, thereafter i.e. on 10-11-1959. Thus only at the date when he filed the appeal against the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalol, in that suit, that village of Chandpur was no longer within the territorial limits of the District of Panchmahals as also of the jurisdiction of the trial Court. It is on that ground that the contention is raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that if a suit were to be filed against a defendant, after that Notification became effective from 16-10-1959, the trial Court had no jurisdiction and when that is so, the appeal against any such decision in a suit filed after 16-10-1959, would lie to the District Judge at Baroda. Therefore, according to him, the District Court at Godhra had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal instituted in that Court Now as already observed above that Notification does not provide for withdrawing the authority of the District Court, Panchmahals, or transferring the authority in that respect to the District Court at Baroda in respect of any such suits either pending in Kalol Court, or appeals pending in Godhra Court. Nor does it provide any change in respect of such decisions in suits in relation to the filing of appeals after 16-10-59, to the Court of appeal. The Notification merely says that particular villages are transferred from one division to the other and no more. Thus if on the basis of such transfer of villages, jurisdiction in filing original suit after 16-10-1959, was to be sought it had to be on that basis but it cannot have a retrospective effect so as to affect pending matters or matters decided before it came in force. It cannot, therefore, be said that the jurisdiction of the District Court was in any way so restricted or taken away in respect of any such particular matters as is sought to be urged by Mr. Shah for the Appellant