RANULAL Vs. DAUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the defendant Ranulal in a case which is pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, and raises a question of jurisdiction.

(2.) THE contesting opposite parties instituted a suit against the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 for recovery of money in the Court of the Civil judge Jodhpur, on the 28th September 1954. This was later transferred to the Court of the additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, where it is pending at the moment. On the 26th july 1956, the petitioner made an application before the trial Judge contending that he had no jurisdiction to try the case. There is no dispute that the cause of action for the suit arose at Pokaran and defendant opposite party No. 3 is also a resident of Pokaran. The petitioner lives in Balotra, and it is urged that Pokaran as well as Balotra are outside the territorial limits of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, and consequently the additional Civil Judge can have no jurisdiction to try this case. It was, therefore, prayed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. This application was opposed in the trial Court, and the learned Judge held that he had and has jurisdiction to try the suit. The present revision has been filed from the above order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies on two grounds in support of his contention that the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, has no jurisdiction to try the present case. The first contention is put in this way. It is conceded by learned counsel for the defendant petitioner that Pokaran was within the territorial limits of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, before the 1st June 1954, according to a notification issued under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (No. VII) of 1950. There is a note at the end of this notification according to which the expressions 'district', 'subdivision' and 'tehsil' in the notification refer respectively to the districts, sub-divisions and Tehsils formed under the Rajasthan Territorial divisions Ordinance, 1949. The contention is that by a notification dated the 31st May 1954, issued under section 7 of the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949, Jaisalmer was formed into a district by itself, and the town of Pokaran was taken out of the jodhpur district and included in the Jaisalmer district, and consequently, the Civil judge, Jodhpur, has no territorial jurisdiction over Pokaran. This point is, however, concluded by a Bench decision of this Court in Gopilal v. Hirachand, 1956 Raj LW 337 (A ). On a similar question having arisen in that case it was held that the jurisdiction of civil Courts was fixed by the Government under Section 7 of the civil Courts Ordinance, 1950. Section 7 (1) is in these terms:--"the Government may, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, fix and alter the local limits of the jurisdiction of any civil Court under this ordinance. " it was held that the jurisdiction having once been fixed by the Government under section 7 can only be altered by another notification under that section, and that it cannot be altered by any notification issued under the Territorial Divisions ordinance, as the latter Ordinance has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that no notification was issued by the Government up to the end of the year 1954 altering the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur. As respects the note appended to the notification dated the 2nd June 1950, issued under Section 7 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, the learned Judges were of opinion that the note merely described Tehsils, Sub-Divisions and Districts as they existed on the date of the notification, and that if a note had not been appended in the manner done it would have been necessary in that case to mention all the villages included in the Tehsils, Sub-Divisions or Districts in the notification itself. It was further pointed out that the said note did not say that any change in the revenue districts, sub-divisions or Tehsils under the Territorial Divisions Ordinance would also change the jurisdiction of the civil Courts as fixed under the notification referred to above in 1950. In this view of the matter, I overrule this contention, and hold that the suit was properly filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, on the 28th September 1954, and that Court had jurisdiction to entertain it at the time it was brought before it.