RIYAZ JAN MAST Vs. ASIF JAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated : 21-6-2000 passed by the Ld. Sub Judge (CJM, Srinagar) whereby he allowed the application of the respondents made therein under 0.13, R. 10 CPC and directed the Assessing Authority of the sales Tax Department to send the record of the firm known as "M/s Indian Metal Mart, Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar." The record comprised of form-C and statements of accounts from 1984 to 1998. In the alternative, to supply the certified copies of the above stated recorded was also ordered. This order was passed in the suit which was filed by the respondents on 1-5-2000 for the reliefs of declaration, partition and possession. The suit was accompanied by application made under O.13, R. 10 CPC wherein the impugned order was passed. The petitioner made application for the vacation of the above said order by pleading that High Court had stayed the operation of the order dated 29-2-2000 passed by the District Judge whereby permission had been granted to the respondents to file the civil suit but this plea did not find favour with the trial Court.

(2.) Heard the arguments.

(3.) The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the trial Court is inherently bad because it has been passed without deciding the objections of the respondents with regard to the jurisdiction. The finding of the trial Judge that Sales Tax Assessing Authority is also a Court is patently wrong because u/S. 2 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1962 Assessing Authority means any person appointed by the Govt. under Sec. 3 to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the assessing authority under the Act and includes an officer-in-charge of a check post or National Area. Under Sec. 22 of the said Act, the Commissioner, and the appellate authority for the purposes of the Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely; to enforce the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or affirmation; compelling the production of documents and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. For the purposes of civil Court there should be a Judge and not an Assessing Authority. The term 'Judge' has been defined under Sec. 2 of the CPC which means the presiding officer of the Civil Court. Sec. 3, CPC classifies the civil Courts for sub-ordination and states that the District Court is subordinate to the High Court and every civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every Court of small causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court. From its reading it transpires that only four types of Courts are recognized and they are; 1. High Court 2. District Court. 3. Every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and 4. Every small causes Court. Under O. 13, R. 10, CPC reference to the term Court is always made to a Court as defined and mentioned in Secs. 2 and 3 of the CPC. That no reason has been assigned has been assigned in the impugned order why summoning of the record was required. Concluding his arguments, the Ld. counsel has contended that the impugned order is erroneous on its face because it is passed without jurisdiction.