PRANKRISHNA SHAINI Vs. KUNJA BEHARI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are as follows: This appeal arises out of a rent suit. On appeal to the Court below the appeal was heard by the District Judge who decreed the appeal. But subsequently a review of judgment was applied for and the learned Judge set aside his former order allowing the appeal. Then, there was a second appeal to this Court, and this Court set aside the Judge's decree and directed the lower Court to re-hear the case, considering the weight which was to be attached to the fact that the co-sharer tenants had paid an increase of rent and finding what was the substantive evidence of which the jama wasil and collection papers were corroborative evidence. The case was originally tried by the District Judge. The District Judge on receipt of the remand order of this Court transferred this case to the Subordinate Judge who disposed of it accordingly.

(2.) Now the plaintiffs, who are the appellants, have preferred this second appeal to this Court and the only point taken is that the District Judge had no power to transfer the appeal from his own file to that of the Subordinate Judge, when it appears that the intention of this Court was that after remand it should be tried by the District Judge. The learned pleader who appears on behalf of the appellant cites to us certain authorities in support of this view, namely, the cases of Chowdhery Hameedoollah V/s. Muteeoonissa Bibee 15 W.B. 574; Sita Ram V/s. Muni Dulaiya 21 A. 230 and Kumarasami Reddiar V/s. Subburaya Reddiar 23 M. 314. The learned pleader for the respondent relies upon Section 22 of Act XII of 1887 which gives the District Judge complete power to transfer any appeal pending before him to any Subordinate Judge under his control. He urges that this section gave the District Judge full power to transfer the case and that there is no technical defect in this proceeding. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge who tried the case had jurisdiction to hear it. We, therefore, do not think it fit to interfere with the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.

(3.) As for the case of Chowdhry Hameedoollah V/s. Mutteeoonissa Bibee 15 W.B. 574 that was a case in which it was held that a District Judge was not competent to transfer a case of execution of a decree which had been passed by his own Court to the file of the Subordinate Judge for disposal. It has been held by this Court that Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not give the District Judge power to transfer execution cases under that section. In this respect the Calcutta High Court is opposed to the views of the High Courts of the other provinces. However that may be, this ruling has no application to the present case.