ABDUL KARIM FATEH MAHOMED Vs. MUNICIPAL OFFICER, ADEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question before us is whether the Civil Court of the Resident at Aden, as constituted by Act II of 1864, is subject to the superintendence of the High Court of Bombay within the meaning of Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, dated 28 December, 1865. If it is, then the High Court has power to remove the present suit from the Court of the Resident and to try and determine that suit, and it is dear on the admitted facts that for the purposes of justice it is proper that this should be done if the High Court has that power. In Pirbhai V/s. B.B. and C.I. Railway Co. (1871) 8 Bom. 4214, Mr. Justice Green held that the Bombay Court of Small Causes, as constituted under Act IX of 1850 (amended by Act XXVI of 1864, Section 7), must be considered to be subject to the superintendence of the High Court for the following reasons: Subject to the conditions prescribed in Section 54 of Act IX of 1850, the High Court had authority under that section to remove causes from the Small Cause Court and itself to try and determine them. By Section 41 of the same Act, any general rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of the Small Cause Court made and issued by the Judges of that Court were to be sent to the High Court for approval.

(2.) Then there was the power of the High Court to prohibit the Bombay Court of Small Causes from proceeding where it was acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction...and there was the power of reserving questions of law or equity for the opinion of the High Court, and the obligation to do so in oases above the value of Rs. 500, on the application of either of the parties such a power of reference was termed by Mr. Justice Phear in the matter of John Thomson (1870) 6 Beng. L.R. 180 a " modified form of apneal."

(3.) For the above reasons Mr. Justice Green held that the Bombay Court of Small Causes, though not subject in all respects, or perhaps generally, to the superintendence of the High Court, nor, strictly speaking, subject to its appellate jurisdiction at all, was so far subject to its superintendence as to give the latter Court, under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, power to remove, and try and determine any suit pending in the former Court, when the High Court for purposes of justice should think proper to do so.