L TOTA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who is a contractor originally brought a suit on January 14, 1966, in the court of the District Judge, Udhampur for, rendition of accounts relating to the execution of the work of construction of Motor Road from Forebay to the site of Power House of the Chenani Hydel Project (RD O, to RD 20,000) allotted to him vide agreement dated December 29, 1964, valuing it for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100/ -. A preliminary decree directing accounts to be taken was passed in the said suit by the District Judge on July 25, 1966 On appeal a Division Bench of this court vide its judgment dated July 10, 1970, set aside the preliminary decree passed by the District Judge holding that the suit for rendition of accounts was not maintainable. The Bench, however, granted an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend his plaint by claiming a specific sum and "putting a proper valuation on his claim in the trial court." Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this court the amended plaint claiming Ra. 23,785.42 from the defendant was filed in the court of the District Judge on October 3, 1970. On an objection however, being taken on behalf of the defendant to the effect that the valuation of the suit being in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the plaint ought to be returned for presentation to the proper court under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the District Judge passed an order on November 24, 1970, returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court Thereafter the plaintiff presented the plaint on the original side of this court on November 25, 1970. After the filing of the written statement by the defendant and the framing of the issues a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge for transfer of the suit to the court of the District Judge, Udhampur, on the ground that the cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that court, it would tend to the convenience of parties if the suit is tried in that court. This prayer was resisted on behalf of the defendant on the ground that the valuation of the suit being above rupees twenty thousand, it had not only to be instituted in but had also to be tried and disposed of by this court. Reliance in support of this objection was placed upon Section 56(2) of the Constitution Act, 1996 (Act XIV of 1996 Samvat: 1939 A.D.) and clause 10 of the Letters Patent issued to the High Court in 1943 AD. It was on the other hand contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the only restriction contained in the aforesaid provisions of law relied upon by the plaintiff was regarding the institution of a suit of which the value is Rs. 20,000/ - or above and not regarding its trial and determination by the District Court which has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Courts Act, 1977 (1920 AD). Feeling that the point raised before him involved an important question relating to the interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Constitution Act, 1996, Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and Section 20 of the Civil Courts Act, 1977, (1920 A.D.), D.D. Thakur J has referred it for decision to this Bench. It is how the matter is before us.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties has reiterated the submissions made by them before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) WE have given our anxious consideration to the sub -missions of the learned counsel for the parties.