MURARI LAL Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rice to this application are shortly these. On the 29th of March 1949 a suit was filed by one Madan Lal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ferozepore, against a firm Des Raj-Surider Mohan of Abohar Mandi which is in the Fazilka Tehsil of the Ferozepore District. The suit was against this firm through two of its partners Des Raj and Gian Chand. There were other defendants shown, namely Murari Lai, Surinder Mohen, Mulk Raj, all three of Abohar Mandi and partners of the flrm Des Raj-Surinder Mohan one Devi Dayal of Jaito in Patiala, one Suraj Ehan of Hapur in Uttar Pradesh and lastly one Babu Bam of Bhiwani in the Hissar District. The suit was on forward contracts said to have been entered into by the plaintiff and his partners who were defendants Devi Dayal, Suraj Bhan and Babu Ram at a time when plaintiff and his partners were residents in the Montgomery District prior to partition. Although on the face of the plaint the defendant firm and its partners as named were residents in the Ferozepore District the plaintiff for some reason or no reason claimed jurisdiction of the Ferozepore Courts under the Displaced Persons Ordinance No. XVIII of 1948 on the ground that the plaintiff was a displaced person and was resident in the Ferozepore District.

(2.) The contesting defendants, namely those other than the plaintiff's former partners, disputed the jurisdiction of the Ferozepore Courts on the ground that the plaintiff was not a resident, in the Ferozepore District and this question of the plaintiff's residence was gone into and tried, and the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not a resident anywhere in the Ferozepore District- He therefore held that he had no jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff did not file an appeal against this order as he was entitled to do under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order returning the plaint was made on the 10th of January 1950 and on the 12th of January the plaintiff presented the plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, first class, Fazilka. Notice was issued to the defendants and the contesting defendants took the objection that the question of jurisdiction of the Ferozepore Courts had been decided by the Subordinate Judge, first class, Ferozepore, and was concluded. The Subordinate Judge, Fazilka, framed two issue's: 1. Has not this Court jurisdiction to try this suit? 2. Is the plaintiff estopped by the judgment of Shri K. Section Ghambir, Sub-Judge, Ferozepore, dated 10-1-1950 from filing this suit in this Court? He held in the affirmative on the first issue and in the negative on the second, considering that "jurisdiction cannot be taken away by the casual remarks of particular Court which were not necessary for the purpose." The present revision application against the dismissal of the objection as to jurisdiction has been filed by Murari Lal, one of the partners of the defendant firm.

(3.) The jurisdiction of subordinate Judges is laid down in Section 27 of the Punjab Courts Act, which reads as follows: "27. (1) The local limits of the Jurisdiction of a Subordinate Judge shall be such as the High Court may define. (2) When the High Court posts a Subordinate Judge to a district, the local limits of the district shall, in the absence of any direction to the contrary, be deemed to be the local limits of His jurisdiction."