RAM KISHORE SHARMA Vs. GOPI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two connected appeals have been referred to a larger Bench by a learned single Judge because he found himself unable to agree with the decision of one of us in Civil Revn. No. 1135 of 1976 (Triloki Nath v. Sri Tula Ram decided on 21st December, 1976). In both these appeals identical question of law arises for consideration.

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to these appeals are that the plaintiff respondents after obtaining requisite sanction of the Advocate General of the State filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure - hereinafter referred to as the Code-against the appellants in the court of the Dist. Judge, Bareilly. THE suit was transferred for decision to the Third Additional District Judge, Bareilly, who decided it ex parte on the 11th February. 1976. THE appellants applied for setting aside of the ex parte decree but the application was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the application for the setting aside of the decree the appellants have preferred First Appeal From Order No. 93 of 1977. In the suit certain issues were decided by the Additional District Judge as preliminary issues. THE issues having been decided against the defendants, they have preferred First Appeal From Order No. 45 of 1976 challenging the findings on those issues.

(3.) ACCORDING to S.4(12) of the General Clauses Act, "District Judge" is "the Judge of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction." Section 8 of the Bengal. Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act XII of 1887) provides : "Additional Judges - (1) When the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal, the State Government may, having consulted the High Court appoint such Additional Judges as may be requisite. (2) Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them, and in the discharge of those functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge." Under S.24(1)(a) of the Code, the District Court is empowered at any stage to "transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try and dispose of the same." For the purposes of S.24 by virtue of Sub-S. (3) thereof, Courts of Additional District Judges are subordinate to the District Court. Section 92 of the Code merely requires the institution of a suit under that provision either before the District Judge or before any other Court empowered by the it has been instituted before a proper Court. If the District Judge assigns under S.8(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act to an Additional District Judge appointed under S.8(1) of that Act the work of trying cases under S.92 of the Code, such Additional District Judge acquires competence to try and dispose of the same within the meaning of S.24(1)(a) of the Code and in exercise of powers under that Section the District Judge can validly transfer such a suit for trial and disposal to him. The words "any suit, appeal or other proceeding" used in S.24 are words of amplitude and have no limitations (See P.C. Gupta v. State, 1974 All LJ 418 : (19 74 Cri LJ 945) (FB)). "The word any is a word which excludes limitation or qualification. It connotes wide generality. Its use points to distributive construction." (Vide Stroud's Judicial Dictionary). A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Chandi Prasad v. Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal, (AIR 1967 Pat 41) observed that, "it is no doubt true that the word 'any' may, in certain context, imply 'all'. The mere fact that S.92 of the Code authorises the State Government to invest Courts other than the District Courts with power to entertain suits under that Section does not, in our judgement, warrant the conclusion that there is an implied curtailment of the power of the District Court to transfer such suits instituted before it to Additional District Judges in exercise of powers under S.24.