YOGESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision petition by one Yogeshchandra. The facts leading to this petition are that a suit is pending in the court of the Munsiff, Udaipur, for an injunction against the defendants for restraining them from prescribing new books in the curriculum of Schools in Rajasthan. An interim injunction was sought in that court and it was allowed. The defendants went in appeal to the court of the District Judge. Udaipur, which was admitted. An objection was raised by the plaintiff-respondent before the District Judge that that court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal during vacations. The District Judge after hearing both the sides held on 23rd June, 1954, that he had jurisdiction to certain such an appeal during vacations in an interlocutory matter which was considered to be of urgent and emergent nature. The plaintiff has come to this court in revision against the aforesaid order of the District Judge on the grounds that firstly the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal during vacations and secondly that it was not a case which could be considered to be of an urgent of emergent nature.

(2.) IT may be pointed out that the court of the District Judge has jurisdiction to entertain and hear suits and appeals under the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (No. VII) of 1950) under which both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction has been vested in it. Sec. 26 of the said Ordinance provides for vacation of courts, IT is laid down that subject to such orders as may be made by the Government, the High Court shall prepare a list of days to be observed in each year as close holidays in the civil courts. By sub-sec. (3) of the same section, it is provided that a judicial act done by a civil court on a day specified in the list shall not be invalid by reason only of its having been done on that day. In exercise of the powers given to it under sec. 26, the High Court published a list of close holidays for the year 1954 which includes both the gazetted holidays and vacations. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to draw a distinction between gazetted holidays and close holidays or vacation. But there appears to be no distinction between the two, as both kinds of close holidays are governed by sec. 26 of the Civil Courts Ordinance. Similarly, rule 11 of the General Rules (Civil) Chapter 1 provides that: - "except with the consent of parties, no suit, case or appeal shall be heard on a gazetted holidays; provided that on a gazetted holiday a court shall not refuse to do any act or make any other urgently required or which may with propriety be done or made out of court. " Reading sec. 26 of the Civil Courts Ordinance along with sec. 11 of the Rules, it becomes evident that civil courts can do work of urgent and emergent nature even during vacations or other holidays. As regards jurisdiction, it may be pointed out that it is not taken away on account of holidays. On holidays, courts remain closed any ordinarily no civil work is done but this, however, does not mean that the courts are debarred from acting in ad interim matters which are of urgent and emergent nature. The courts are competent to do work of urgent and emergent nature on holidays or during vacations. The objection raised by the petitioner that the court of the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal even if it is of urgent and emergent nature has no force.