MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. MST SURJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for transfer of a case pending before the Panchayat court at Bata Guod. In the first instance, an application was filed before the District Judge Srinagar under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Village Panchayat Act, but the same was rejected. The transfer was sought mainly on the ground of convenience,

(2.) APPEARING for the petitioner Mr. Sunder Lal contended that since a Panchayat court was a criminal court governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court had ample powers under Section 526, Criminal P. C. to transfer a case. In support of his argument he has relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Basdeo Misra v. Badal Misra AIR 1927 All 199. We have perused that case and we find that the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case, Mr. Justice Iqbal Ahmed as he then was held that Section 26 read with Section 5 of the U. P. Village Panchayat Act, conferred power on the High Court to transfer a case. In the instant case, we find, that the Jammu and Kashmir Village Panchayat Act does not give any power to the High Court to transfer a case pending before a Panchayati Adalat. The Jammu and Kashmir Village Panchayat Act is a completely self-contained Act and provides for the mode of trying cases and the forum of appeal or revision therefrom. It may be noted here that in the said Act while the District Judge has been given specifically power to transfer cases from one Panchayati Adalat to another, no such power is given to the High Court. Thus the power of transfer has been taken away from the High Court by implication.

(3.) IT was then contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even if Section 26 did not apply this Court had powers under clause 18 of the Letters Patent to transfer a case from one Panchayati Adalat to another. A similar argument was pot forward in Sat Narain v. Sarju reported as A I R 1924 All 265 where Stuart J. was clearly of the view that clause 22 of the Letters Patent did not apply to Panchayati Adalat. Kanhaiya J. had taken a contrary view. We are, however, inclined to agree with the view taken by Stuart J. The relevant clause so far as our Letters Patent is concerned, is to he found in clause 18 of the Letters Patent, which runs thus: