DHURU Vs. CHANDU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, by a defendant, arises out of an appellate decision of Sri Lachhman Dass, Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, in a suit for rendition of accounts. On 14-3-1956, the revision petition was admitted on the following two points (a) Whether the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to decide the appeal on 19-9-1955, in view of this Court's notification dated 15-9-1955 withdrawing appellate powers from Senior Subordinate Judges in Himachal Pradesh? (b) Whether apart from the above notification, the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, i. e. since the appeal arose out of an unclassed suit, exceeding Rs. 100/- in value?

(2.) Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the 3rd instant at Mandi. I now proceed to deliver judgment.

(3.) (a) Mr. Mehra for the petitioner argued that Sri Lachhman Dass had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal, because his appellate powers were withdrawn on 15-9-1955, vide this Court's Notification No. J.C. 6 (31)/49 of that date. Judgment was delivered by Sri Lachhman Dass on 19-9-1955, i. e. four days after his appellate powers had been withdrawn. Mr. Mehra further pointed out that the notification, withdrawing appellate powers from Senior Subordinate Judges, was published in the State Gazette on 17-9-1955. This, he contended, amounted to adequate notice to all concerned. It was, therefore, urged that it was incumbent upon Sri Lachhman Dass to return the appeal for presentation to the learned District Judge of Mandi for disposal. Mr. D.R. Chaudhary for the respondents argued that since the appeal was filed in the Court of Sri Lachhman Dass, while he possessed appellate powers, and arguments on the appeal were concluded on 12-9-1955, i. e. before the appellate powers were withdrawn, he had jurisdiction to decide the appeal. In this connection, Mr. Chaudhary cited (i) In re Hargulal v. Abdul Gany Hajee Ishaq, AIR 1936 Rang 147 (A) where a Full Bench of that High Court, with reference to the provisions of Order 20, Rule 2, held that: