LT. COL. BALWANT SINGH Vs. S. PARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent instituted a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for realisation of the amount in dispute on the basis of a pronote. The defendant sought permission of the Court under rule 3 of Order 37 of the Code to defend the suit. The learned Sub Judge vide order dated March 5, 1979, had granted conditional permission to defend the suit. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition under section 115 of the Code by the defendant.

(2.) THE first objection raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Order 37 are not applicable to the Courts at Chandigarh and, therefore, no suit is competent under this provision. Reliance for this contention is placed on the rule as amended by this Court which was in force prior to the enforcement of the amended Code with effect from February 1, 1977. According to that rule only the Courts of District Judge and Sub Judge 1st class of the Delhi province and in Districts of Lahore and Amritsar were invested with the jurisdiction to entertain such suits. The argument is wholly misconceived of the amended substance Prior to the enforcement of the amended Code, no court in the State of Punjab or the Union Territory of Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Order 37 of the Code unless it was specifically empowered in this behalf by the State Government After the enforcement of the amended provision all Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain suit, under Order 37 of the Code unless their jurisdiction is curtailed by the High Court by notification in the official gazette. There being no such notification pertaining to the Courts at Chandigarh these Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits under Order 37 of the Code. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of provision of section 157 of the Code the operation of the earlier rule is saved, is also without any substance because only those rules are saved which do not run counter to the provisions of the amended Code. The rule framed by the High Court under the old Act certainly run counter to the provisions of Order 37 as contained in the amended Code. Therefore, the provisions of section 157 of the Code are not attracted in the present case