ANNAMARRY SATHIANATHAN Vs. AMBROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore in C.M.A. No. 43 of 1991.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows : The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.18 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakonam and also filed I. A. No. 21 of 1991 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from functioning as Member of the Arakonam North Pastorate Committee. The vacation Civil Court heard the injunction application in I.A. No. 21 of 1991 and dismissed the same on merits. As against the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 43 of 1991 before the District Judge. The Revision Petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit and respondents in the C.M.A. before the learned District Judge raised an objection that since the impugned order was passed by the Vacation Civil Judge, the appeal lies only to the High Court by virture of the provisions of S. 30(7) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, and the District Court is not having jurisdiction, and on that ground, the appeal has to be dismissed on the preliminary point itself. The learned District Judge, after referring to sub-clauses (3), (6) and (7) of Section 30 of the Civil Courts Act came to the conclusion that since the papers were transferred to the concerned court, after vacation was over, and in view of S.30 (6) of the Civil Courts Act, the appeal filed before the District Court is maintainable and consequently held that the District Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and dismissed the application filed by the respondents raising the preliminary objection. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge has not properly construed the meaning of S. 30 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Court Act, 1873 and if so done, the appeal against the order passed by the vacation Civil Court even after vacation lies to the High Court, and the power given by S. 30(6) has been taken away by the provision of the non obstante clause.