C MACARTHUR Vs. PURNA CHANDRA CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff brought a suit for arrears of rent in 1865, against the appellant and another, in the Collector's Court, at Alipore, 24-Pergunnas, and obtained an ex parte decree against him. On the 20th April 1869, an application for a rehearing was made, which was (after an appeal to this Court) ultimately granted on 11th June 1868. The appellant having got the order, that his case should be reheard on 1st July 1868, filed a petition objecting to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector of the Sudder Sub-division, on the ground that the fishery for which rent was demanded was situated in the subdivision of Basirhat (which, as appears from the Government Gazette of 8th January 1861, was the name by which the then existing subdivision of Mitterhaut was afterwards to be called), and therefore the suit, as required by the provisions of section 20, Act VI of 1862, B.C., should have been instituted in the revenue office of that sub-division. The Deputy Collector, after consulting the Collector, who directed him to try the case, disallowed the objection, and going into the merits gave a decree in favour of plaintiff. This judgment was affirmed by the lower appellate Court, the Judge considering that the conclusion come to by the Deputy Collector on the question of jurisdiction was correct. In special appeal, the question of jurisdiction is the point relied on. Looking at the terms of section 20, Act VI of 1862, B.C.; Suits under this Act or under Act X of 1859, shall be preferred in the revenue office of the district, or when a sub-division of a district has been placed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Collector, in the revenue office of the sub-division in which the cause of action shall have arisen, &c.,--it appears to us that the conclusion come to by the Courts below is opposed to the words and intention of the law. The words distinctly require that where a sub-division has been created, suits for rent are to be instituted in the sub-division where the cause of action arose, and the law does not allow parties any alternative as to the forum in which the suit is to be instituted. It is urged in the present case, that the Collector gave the Deputy Collector of the Sudder subdivision authority to try the case the Collector has, no doubt, under the provisions of section 20 of Act VI of 1862, B.C., authority to transfer suits, when properly instituted, from one Court to another subordinate to him. But the authority thus given him by law does not enable him to override that other part of the law which points out the Courts in which atone suits for rent can be legally instituted. The authority given by the Collector in this case to the Deputy Collector to try the suit, does not correct the defect of the original erroneous institution. This Court has so decided in several oases, Ranee Shurai Soonderee Dabee v. Khemun Karee Dabee 5 W.R. Act X Rul. 87, Phillip v. Bundhoo Sircar 7 W.R. 170, Nezoo Sircar v. Phillipe 10 W.R. 454, Chunder Kant Chuckerbutty v. Elias 5 W.R. Act X Rul. 29 has been quoted as showing that a different view of this matter has been taken. The question involved in that case is not precisely the question which is now before us. The Judges there held that the Collector had, under the circumstances, jurisdiction, though he exercised it irregularly; and they declined to interfere in special appeal, as the defendant admittedly had no real defence, and had sustained no sort of injury from the suit having been originally irregularly instituted. There is no such conflict between the decision in that case (which turned chiefly on the special circumstances under which the parties were before the Court), and the decisions in the other cases we have referred to, as would in our opinion justify us in sending this case to be decided by a Full Bench.

(2.) We decide in favour of the appellant, and dismiss the plaintiff's suit as against him with costs in all the Courts.