RAMKARAN Vs. MUNSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two references arising out of two different suits No.8 and 9 -B of 1962 involving the same questions. They are accordingly being answered together by this decision.

(2.) THE defendant Shankarrao was alleged to have executed a promissory note in plaintiff's favour. On the basis of this note plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 8 -B/1962 for the recovery of the amount. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Indore, who entertained it and fixed 8 -10 -1960 for evidence of the parties. By that time Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, had come into force (It came into force on 1 -1 -1959). In Civil Suit No 9 -B/1962, defendant Munshi executed an agreement to purchase Milk in plaintiff's favour on certain terms. Milk was accordingly supplied for certain period plaintiff claimed Rs. 600 as the balance of his dues. The suit was filed on 15 -7 -1958 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Indore. An application was thereupon made purporting to be one under section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act in each of these two cases by the defendant raising the contention that the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class had no longer any jurisdiction to try the suit. This contention found favour with that Court and by its order dated 8 -10 -1960 and 4 -11 -1960 respectively directed the suits to be transferred to the VI Additional District Judge, Indore, as Small Cause Suits. The learned Judge entertained the suits and fixed them for evidence on 19 -1 -1962. But on that day he felt that the suits should not have been transferred to him having regard to the provisions of section 27 and other provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, in view of the observations found in a decision of Shiv Dayal, J. in Bhikaram Vs. Ramratan, 1961 JLJ=SN 500. He accordingly directed the return of the suits to the first Court namely the Court of Civil Judge. Second Class Indore and fixed 13 -2 -1962 and 27 -3 -1962 respectively as the date for the appearance of parties before that Court.

(3.) ALL the three questions are really different facts of the same question namely whether the first order directing transfer of the suit could or could not be questioned by the learned Additional District Judge exercising small cause powers. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the first order operates as res -judicata and disentitles the transferee Court from questioning it or not because on the terms of the provisions of the Act it seems clear that it is the Court of the Additional District Judge who had jurisdiction to try the suits after the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act. Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act which is material for the present purpose is as follows: -