KRISHAN GOPAL DEVI PRASAD Vs. DATTATRAYA MADHO LAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a reference the following question came before a Division Bench (S. B. Sen and Kaina, JJ.) for decision

(2.) UNDER Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court is empowered to send for the record of any Court subordinate to it and may make such order in the case as it thinks fit if certain conditions specified in the section are satisfied. The revisional power of the High Court thus depends on two conditions, namely, (i) that the order to be revised must be that of a 'court'; and (ii) that the Court must be subordinate to the High Court. The expression 'court' has nowhere been denned in the Code of Civil Procedure. That matter came for consideration before the Privy Council in Raiah Nilmoni Singh Deo Bahadur v. Taranath Mookerjee, (1881) 9 Ind App 174 (PC ). Under Act X of 1859 (Bengal Rent Act) certain rent suits were made cognizable by the Collectors and that except for the appeal provided under that Act no cognizance could be taken of the suits by any other court. The question arose as to whether the decrees in the rent suits passed by the Collectors could be transferred for execution beyond the jurisdiction of that court. The High Court took the view that the Collector's Court not being a Civil court the provisions of transferring the decree from one Court to another contained in the Code of Civil Procedure could not be attracted. Theii Lordships of the Privy Council, after considering the provisions of Act X of 1859, came to the conclusion:

(3.) THE Civil Procedure Code of 1859 was amended from time to time and the last consolidated Code was enacted in the year 1908 which is the present Code. It must be noted that even in this Code 'court' is not denned and the legislature may be taken to have accepted the interpretation put by their Lordships of the Privy council on that word in (1881) 9 Ind APP 174 (PC) (supra ).