MD AMIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions have arisen out of the common order passed by the District Judge, Gopalganj, in Misc. case no. 39 of 1999 and 40 of 1999.

(2.) PETITIONERS in both the revision petitions have filed separate petition under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the matter of dispute between them and the Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Survey representing the State of Bihar. Objections were raised regarding the maintainability of the petitions and Jurisdiction of the District Judge. Serestedar of the court of the District Judge gave notes to the effect that the District Judge has got no power to entertain these petitions and that from the averments made those petitions cannot be under Sections 14 or 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act rather those might be construed as under Section 8 of the Act. By the impugned order learned Dist. Judge held that the petitions are misconceived as those can be construed only under Section 8 of the Act and that too those must have been filed before the appropriate civil court of the district having jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. Hence, this revision petitions have been preferred by the above -named petitioners.

(3.) SO the principal civil court of original jurisdiction has been qualified to the extent of having jurisdiction to decide the question if it would have been a suit of the same subject matter. By referring to definition of District Judge as per Section 3 (17) of the General Clauses Act 1897 it has been argued that the District Judge is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. As per the General Clauses Act the District Judge means the Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction but shall not include a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. Thus, as per the General Clauses Act also the Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction is meant a District Judge but hierarchy of the civil court has been made by the Bengal Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and under that Act the court of Subordinate Judge is construed to be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction having infinite pecuniary jurisdiction. The District Judge although stands on the higher position in the hierarchy but as per Civil Courts Act 1887 the District Judge or the Additional District Judge have got no original jurisdiction for deciding a suit. Some original jurisdiction have been given to the District Judge by different Acts such as Indian Succession Act whereby the District Judge has been empowered to exercise original jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act for the purpose of grant of succession, certificate and for adjudicating of proceeding of probate and letters of administrtion but for deciding a suit under the original jurisdiction, the sole power has been given to the Sub - Judg4 e /1 /u 20n 1d 3 e r P atg h ee 2 5Act and in that way, definitely the Sub -Judge should be construed as the principal civil court in a district for the purpose of entertaining a suit of original jurisdiction and not the District Judge. This point was raised before a Bench of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. V/s. M/s R. L. Singh, Civil Engineer as reported in 1997 (1) BLJR 857 and a single Judge of this Court has held that application under Section 8 is maintainable before the Sub Judge who is a civil court of original jurisdiction. The definition of principal civil court under the Act 1996 and that of principal civil court of original jurisdiction under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act 1887 were Murari Krishna Prasad Sinha Versus State Of Bihar considered and then the decision has been arrived at. I am totally in agreement with that decision of our High Court. But the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision of the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s I. T. I. Ltd. V/s. District Judge, Allahabad as reported in 1998 Allahabad