KAPOOR CHAND SANGHI Vs. NARAIN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by one of the defendants, namely, Shri Kapoor Chand Sanghi, challenging the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur, to entertain and try Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 filed in his court and questioning the validity of his order passed therein on 6th July, 1960.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application and which are not in dispute between the parties are, that four persons, namely, Sarvshri Narainlal, Moolchand, Mangilal and Seth Kesrichand sought permission of the Advocate General, Rajasthan, under sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for filing a suit against the President, the Secretary and 26 other members of the Executive Committee, Jain Atishaya Kshetra Shri Mahaveer Swami, Chandan Gaon Naurangabad (Rajasthan) for certain reliefs, which need not be mentioned here. On the 10th of September, 1955, the Advocate General granted the required permission to the said four applicants for filing the suit within 6 months from the date of his order. THEreafter, three out of four above-noted applicants, namely, Sarvshri Narainlal, Moolchand and Seth Kesrichand filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 in the court of the District Judge, Bharatpur, on 6th March, 1956. One of the applicants, namely, Mangilal had died after the grant of the permission by the Advocate General and prior to the institution of the suit and, therefore, he could not be impleaded as a plaintiff. One of the objections, which was raised on behalf of the defendants in their written statement was, that the suit was not maintainable on the strength of the permission obtained by the plaintiffs from the Advocate General on account of the demise of Shri Mangilal. Issue No. 23, which was based on this objection, was, therefore, framed as follows: - "whether the suit is not maintainable on the strength of the permission obtained by the plaintiffs along with Mangilal, who died prior to the institution of the suit?" THE learned District Judge decided this issue on 6th July, 1960, against the defendants and the present application is directed against that order.

(3.) IT appears from the order of the learned District Judge that although he took great pains in writing out the impugned order, the import of the observation of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mt. Ali Begam's case (1) was not properly appreciated by him. In our opinion, Mangilal having died before the institution of the suit, the suit as instituted did not conform to the consent of the Advocate General and since it was not validly instituted, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain it.