TELU Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE MUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following five suits were filed in the Court of Sub-Judge concerned having the territorial jurisdiction :-

(2.) In the first two cases the Senior Subordinate Judge, Jind vide his order dated 11th April, 1975 and 18th April, 1975, respectively, transferred them to the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jind. In the remaining three cases, the Sub-Judge Second Class, Jind transferred the suits to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Jind. These cases were transferred on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same under Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, as amended by the Haryana Amendment Act. However, subsequently, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jind, came to the conclusion that as Section 13-A of the Act had been struck down by the High Court, he had no jurisdiction to try these suits and thus all the 5 suits were again transferred back by him to the Civil Court concerned. This reference has been made by R.C. Jain, Senior Sub-Judge, Jind, by his order dated 26th October, 1976, under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for opinion that the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jind, to which Court all the 5 above mentioned suits have been sent for trial by the Civil Court concerned, did not have jurisdiction to transfer them directly to the Civil Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in view of the judgment in Dig Ram v. State of Haryana, 1977 PunLJ 446 and in spite of the decision of this Court in The Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society v. Gram Panchayat, 1976 PunLJ 237 striking down Section 13-A of the Act, it is the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade who has jurisdiction to try such suits and not the Civil Court and that the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jind wrongly transferred the suit to the Civil Court. It has been further contended that before the suits were transferred back by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jind, the procedure as prescribed under Order 7 rule 10-A Civil Procedure Code ought to have been complied with, which was not done in these cases.

(3.) Before the enactment of Order 7 rule 10-A Civil Procedure Code, if the Court came to a conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to try a particular suit, the plaint was to be returned to the party concerned who was to file the same in the Court having jurisdiction. However, in order to avoid the delay, in such procedure, new procedure has been prescribed under rule 10-A according to which when the Court comes to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to try the same, intimation of the decision is given to the plaintiff who is then required to inform the Court about the Court in which he proposes to file the plaint and along with it a prayer has also to be made for fixing up a date for appearance of the parties before the second Court. Thereon, the Court will fix the date and direct the parties to appear in the Court having jurisdiction. In view of this procedure, it appears that Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jind did not commit any illegality in transferring the cases directly to the Civil Court and directing the parties to appear there on the date fixed by him, though some irregularity may have been committed in not pursuing the exact procedure as prescribed therein. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, in view of the decision of the Division Bench above referred to, it is the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and not the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to try these cases. In view of this position of law, all the above mentioned 5 suits may be sent back to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jind for trial of the same.