JAI PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. ANAND AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by third Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Case No. 26A/13.

(2.) The respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Annexure P-2). Admittedly, the said suit was filed on the basis of the Special Act, i.e., M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (Act of 51). In the course of proceedings, the present petitioner/defendant No.2 filed an application under Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-4). In the said application, it is contended that the learned District Judge has issued a distribution memo for the year 2013-2014 and 2015. As per memo, cases under the Special Acts needs to be heard only by the District and Sessions Judge, Vidisha. On the basis of aforesaid stand, it is contended by the petitioner that this fact was suppressed by the plaintiff and the suit was directly filed before the Court of Additional District Judge. It is contended that as per the M.P. Public Trust Act, the jurisdiction is vested with the Principal Civil Court. The Court of Additional District Judge cannot be treated as the Court of Principal Civil Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the suit be returned to plaintiff by reserving liberty to him to present it before the appropriate court. The Court below by impugned order has rejected the said application.

(3.) Criticizing this order, Shri D.D.Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court on Section 2 of the MP Public Trust Act which defines the word "Court". He submits that definition of the "Court", means Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. By taking this Court to Section 7 of the Civil Courts' Act, 1958 (Act of 58) it is contended that the Court of District Judge shall be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the Civil District. To elaborate, he contends that the Additional District Judge can discharge any of the functions of District Judge including functions of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, provided there exists a general or special order of the District Judge assigning this work for the purpose of discharging the said function by the Additional District Judge. He contends that a conjoint reading of Section 2 of M.P. Public Trust Act with Section 7 of the Civil Courts' Act leaves no room for any doubt that the instant suit, in absence of any general or special order of the District Judge, could not have been presented before the Additional District Judge. The attention is also drawn on the distribution memo dated 2.4.2012 (Annexure P-6). It is contended that if the instant suit is examined only on the anvil of pecuniary jurisdiction, no doubt, the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is contended that the matter need not be examined in the light of pecuniary jurisdiction because it is a matter which is squarely covered under Clause 1(4) of the distribution memo which makes it clear that if it is otherwise described, it is only the District Judge under the special act who can try the suit. In support of his contentions, Shri D.D.Bansal relied on following judgments:-