NANILAL ROY Vs. SUNITI BALA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiff on a mortgage dated 12th March 1932 asking for a mortgage decree in Form No. 5 of the Appendix D to the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was filed after obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The defendants are mortgagors including their legal representatives and heirs.

(2.) The only issue raised before me on behalf of the defendants is one of jurisdiction. It is said by the defendants that all other properties are zamindary properties situated in the district of Mymensingh outside the original jurisdiction of the High Court and that l/48th undivided share of premises No. 20, Garanhatta Street is the only Calcutta property by which jurisdiction is intended to be found in the High Court. On the basis of the very well-known decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 'Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sundar Mal', 61 I. A. 286 and 'Venkata Rama Rao v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao', 63 I. A. 169 and one of the Court of Appeal of this Court in 'Premsukh Mahato v. Mangalchand', 41 C. W. N. 854, it is urged that there is no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

(3.) Mr. P. C. Basu appearing on behalf of the defendants has raised the following issue. Has the Court jurisdiction to entertain this suit and should leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked?