RAICHANDER MONHANLAL Vs. PERMANAND SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the plaintiff against the Judgement of the Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C. M. A. No. 79 of 1976, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, returning the plaint in O. S. No. 368 of 1969 to be presented before proper Court.

(2.) In this revision the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an interesting point with regard to the establishment of a Court to be called City Civil Court. He contended that the Andhra Pradesh, Civil Courts Act, provides for only one City Civil Court, with Judges of different cadres for cities or Hyderabad and Secunderabad. As the City Civil Court Constitutes one Court, one Judge cannot pass an order to return the plain to be presented before another Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction, in the same City Civil Court. If a particular Judge finds that according to his cadre he is not competent to hear that particular suit, to the Chief judge, City Civil Court for being allotted and posted before another Judge having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further elaborated the point by stating that if the plaint is returned to be presented in proper court, it necessarily implies that there is another court and that is contrary to the intendment of the creation of a City Civil Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Municipal corporation, on the other hand, contended that the words Judge and Court are synonymous. Every Judge presides over a separate Court. The Judges are given powers under a statute. The pecuniary jurisdiction to a particular Judge in City Civil Court is given by the statute but not by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. The City Civil Court consists of several judges and each Judge is a unity by itself i.e., each Judge presides over a separate court. For the purpose of administration the City Civil Court may be a single unity, but for the judicial purpose the Court are different.