SIR KAMESHWARA SINGH Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Clause 9, Letters Patent, asking that a suit now pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Parbhauga be removed to and tried by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. Clause 9, Letters Patent states that this jurisdiction is to be exercised "for purposes of justice", and the purposes of justice are served when the questions which arise in the suit are questions of public importance and unusual difficulty and when the interests of neither party will be seriously prejudiced if the suit is tried in this Court instead of being tried locally Harendra Lall Roy v. Sarvamangala Dabee, (24 Cal. 183). Two questions of constitutional law arise in this suit. One is whether a person, whose interests are likely to be prejudicially affected by a law which has been passed by the Provincial Legislature and has received the assent of the Governor-General is entitled to ask for a declaration that the law is unconstitutional and for an injunction restraining the Provincial Government from bringing the law into operation. That is obviously a question of great public importance and of some little difficulty. The other is whether, what a proprietor or tenure-holder is to receive as compensation under the Abolition of Zamindari Act, 1948, for his estate or tenure is, in fact, compensation within the meaning of that expression as it is used in Sub-section (2) of Section 299, Government of India Act. That, again, is a question in the determination of which a very large number of persons are vitally interested and it is a question of some considerable difficulty. Mr. P. B. Das, for the plaintiff, states that his client does not propose to adduce oral evidence, except possibly oral evidence of a purely formal character, and contends that the questions which arise in the suit are purely and simply questions of law. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar, while disputing this, has not said or suggested that, if oral evidence is to be adduced by the defendant, that oral evidence will not be given by persons who can as conveniently attend this Court as they could the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(2.) AN affidavit has been put in on behalf of the defendant by Mr. Singeshwar Prasad Sinha, who is the Secretary to the Provincial Government in the Revenue Department. The grounds set out in this affidavit are not, and do not purport to be grounda for declining to remove the suit to this Court but rather grounds for postponing the trial of the suit sine the or for not trying it at all. In para. 8 of the affidavit it is stated that "the suit is premature". I take this to mean that the plaintiff has not, as yet, any cause of action. If that is so, the suit will be dismissed. Again, paras. 10 and 11 of the affidavit contain the following :