NAZIRUDDEEN Vs. P A ANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent in. O. P. No. 78 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore is the petitioner herein. The first respondent herein filed the original petition under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. to permit him to file the suit as an indigent person. In the suit, the first respondent prayed for a declaration that he has won the first prize of Rs. 27,00,000 on the lottery ticket issued by the Director of State lottery, U. P. (Lucknow) in the draw held on 173-1977, by the State of Uttar Pradesh by Secretary to Government, Finance department, Lucknow U. P. and for a decree directing the Director of State lottery as well as the State Government to pay the sum to him. The petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the prayer of the first respondent herein by contending that the first respondent is in possession of sufficient means to pay the Court fees due on the plaint and that the first respondent has got lands, houses, pumpsets, rice mill and other immoveable properties worth more than rs. 3,00,000. He also raised the contention that the Subordinate Judge's court, vellore has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the first respondent herein. The basis on which the last para was put forward was that the relevant rule under the Uttar Pradesh State Lottery Rules, 1969 according to the petitioner herein, vested exclusive jurisdiction in such matters only is the courts in lucknow and therefore the Subordinate Judge's court of Vellore has no jurisdiction. By consent of both sides, the question of jurisdiction was taken up as a preliminary point and arguments were heard on that point and by the order dated 8-8-1977, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Vellore held that the Subordinate Judge's Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is to revise the said order that the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) MR. K. Parasaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that there is absolutely nothing illegal in the parties agreeing when two or more courts have jurisdiction in res- pect of a particular matter, to designate a particular court alone as the competent court to entertain the controversy and deal with and dispose of the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly the courts in Lucknow have jurisdiction because the Director of State lottery is there, and if the allegation of the first respondent that his lottery was stolen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Vellore was true, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction and consequently as between the two courts, it was open to the parties to agree as to which court will have exclusive jurisdiction to try the controversy. In this context, the learned counsel relied on the following rule, namely, R. 35 in Uttar Pradesh State Lottery Rules, 1969 -"35. The legal jurisdiction in all matters concerning the State Lottery shall be Lucknow. " the sole question for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the abovesaid rule has the effect of vesting exclusive jurisdiction only in the courts in Lucknow and thereby taking away the jurisdiction which the Subordinate judge's Court at Vellore would have, if it was established that the lottery ticket was stolen within the jurisdiction of that Court from the first respondent herein, as alleged by him.

(3.) IT is well established that the jurisdiction of a civil court can be taken away only by an express provision or by necessary implication and the ousting of jurisdiction of a civil court should not and ought not to be lightly inferred from an ambiguous provision. In this particular case, it is common case of the parties that Rule 35 of the Uttar Pradesh State Lottery Rules, 1969, extracted above does not expressly take away the jurisdiction of any other court and vest the exclusive jurisdiction only in the courts in Lucknow However, Mr. Parasaran wants me to draw an inference from R. 35 extracted above, that under that rule the parties intended that the courts in Lucknow should have exclusive jurisdiction. I am unable to accept this argument. For one thing, Rule 35 of the rules referred to above does not refer to any court at all, nor does it refer to the solving of any dispute arising out of the rules by a court. Mr. Parasaran wants me to draw the inference that the said rule really means 'the jurisdiction of the court', when it uses the expression legal jurisdiction'. I am of the opinion that such a conclusion cannot be drawn. The expression 'legal jurisdiction' is so ambiguous, so nebulous and so tenuous to draw the inference that the said rule 35, necessarily refers to the jurisdiction of the courts alone. Consequently i am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel that by Rule 35 of the Rules referred to above, the jurisdiction of the other courts has been taken away and the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested only in the Courts in lucknow.