RAM BILAS MAL Vs. RAGHUNATH SAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Gaya. The decree- holder is the appellant. He had obtained a money-decree against the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,500 odd in the Court of Second Munsif of Gaya. He began execution proceedings in that Court. We are concerned only with one of the properties. The Munsif attached the property which happens to lie in the Aurangabad Sub-Division and not in the Sub-Division which has been assigned for administrative purposes to the Munsif of the Second Court of Gaya. After the attachment there was a sale proclamation to which there was no objection on the part of the respondent. After the sale proclamation, however, the respondent objected that the entire property which was in the Aurangabad Sub-Division was in the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Aurangabad and not in the jurisdiction of the second Munsif of Gaya who had passed the decree, and so the execution case before the second Munsif of Gaya in so far as it concerned this property was without jurisdiction. The Munsif of the second Court of Gaya allowed the objection to the sale but maintained the attachment over the property. The judgment-debtor then appealed to the District Judge against the order of the Munsif maintaining the attachment and contended that the order for attachment could not be made by the second Munsif of Gaya inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction over the property in the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Aurangabad. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and held that the attachment by the Gaya. Court could not be maintained having regard to the fact that there would have to be a transfer of the decree to the Munsif of Aurangabad for execution and from this decision the decree-holder has come in second miscellaneous appeal to this Court.

(2.) Now the principle which governs the question of jurisdiction of the local Civil Courts has been laid down in two authorities of this Court, that is to say in Manogi Lal Sah V/s. Jog Sah 13 Pat. 5 : 151 Ind. Cas. 375 : AIR 1931 Pat 199 (1) : 15 PLT 215 : 7 RP 85(1) and also in Chandmal Marwari V/s. Raja Shiba Prasad Singh 13 Pat. 21 : 155 Ind. Cas. 769 : AIR 1934 Pat. 192 : 15 PLT 513 : 7 RP 62213 Pat. 21 : 155 Ind. Cas. 769 : AIR 1934 Pat. 192 : 15 PLT 513 : 7 RP 622 in which I pronounced judgment and attempted to explain the principle. Under the Bengal and Assam Civil Courts Act, Section 3, for each District there have to be four kinds of Courts, the Court of the District Judge, the Court of the Additional Judge, the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the Court of the Munsif; and it was pointed out in my judgment that it is open to the High Court and in some cases to the Local Government, for mere administrative purposes to say (take for instance a Munsif's Court alone) that for executing the jurisdiction of the Munsif in the District there may be one or more Munsif's but every Munsif is a Munsif for the District, although by an administrative order he exercises jurisdiction over a limited part of the District.

(3.) It was quite right and proper for the Munsif in whose jurisdiction the execution was proceeding to say that with regard to attachment or sale of property outside his jurisdiction so limited it is a matter of convenience to transfer it to the Munsif of another Sub-Division where the property is situated; but his jurisdiction as a Munsif of the District is unimpaired and he has jurisdiction, therefore, to attach property in any part of the District.