HYAT MAHOMED Vs. SHAIKH MANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a mortgage suit was tried and decreed at Arrah, It would appear that a preliminary decree was passed on the 24 of June 1921and the final decree on the 27 of January 1922. The sale was in April 1922at which the mortgagees purchased the properties. It is true that a writ for delivery of possession was issued in September 1922 by way of execution on the Original Side of the High Court.

(2.) The present application concerns a suit brought by the defendants to that mortgage suit on the 20 of April 1925. It appears that that suit was brought to set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah on the ground of suppression of processes. Curiously enough the writ of summons was not served for more then a year. An application is now made to us by the defendants in the suit for an order that that suit be transferred to the Court at Arrah which is within the limits of the Province of Behar and Orissa.

(3.) It is said that the application is competently brought before this Division Bench by virtue of the terms of Section 23 of the Civil P. C.. In our opinion, Section 23 of the Civil P. C. does not govern this case so as to make this Division Bench a proper forum to which such an application can be made. It is quite true that the word "District," in the Civil P.C., includes not merely the local limits of what is ordinarily called a District Court, but includes the local limits of a High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. that is a very different thing indeed from saying that the words "District Court," wherever they appear in the Civil P. C. mean and include a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. If that is what was intended to be laid down by Mr. Justice Fletcher in the case of Kedarnath Mondal V/s. Ganesh Chandra Adak [1907] 12 C.W.N. 466, I do not agree with it.