LexLAKSHMI NARAIN versus FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT :JUDGE, ALLAHABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I 362 SUPRE11E. COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. LAKSHMI NARAIN "· FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT :JUDGE,' , ~ALLAHABAD . . .... (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B: GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and j. C. SHAH, jj.) · Transfer of Appeal-Power of High Court-Enhancement ·of Jurisdiction of District Court-Transfer of first appeal pendin[l in High Court to District Court-Validity-Power of District Court to hear the appeal-Code of Civil Proudure, 1908 ·(Act V of 1908) s. 24 (1) (a)c._U. P. Civil Laws, (Reforms· and '·Amendment) Act, 1954 (U; P. 24 of 1954), s. 3 (1). · The U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendmentj Act, 1954, amended s. 21 (I) (c) ·of the Bengal, Agra and Assam ·Civil Courts Act, 1837, so as to enable the District Courts to 'hear first appeals valued up to Rupees ten- thousand and by · s. 3 (I) provided that ani proceeding instituted, or commenced in "any court prior to the commenccn1ent of this Act; shall; Ilof withstanding any amendment herein made continue to be heard and decided by such Court.'.' The appellant brought a suh ·in the Civil Judges Court for possession of certain properties. ·That suit was di•missed on November 27, 1951. He preferred a first appeal to. the High Court on February 3,1952. That appeal; was transferred under s. 24 (I) (a) of the Code of CivH l'roccdure by the Chief justice in Chambers and without notice to the parties, to the District Judge of Allahabad for hearing. The appellant appeared before that Court and raised a preli- . minary objection as to the jurisdiction of that court to hear the appeal.. The ·objection was .· overruled • . The appellant moved the · High Court . under Art. 226. · Singlejudgc who heard the petition dismissed .it in limine '. relying on a decision of the Division Bench. Appeal· against the decision was summarily dismissed by the Division Bench. Held, that under s. 3 (I) of the Act, the High Court alone · was competent to hear the appeal pending· before it; and by transferring the same to the. District Court it had failed to give effect to the concluding words of the section .. Section 24 of the Cude of Civil Procedure postulates. th~t · the Court towhich an appeal is transferred must be competent. J ' ·' i S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 363 to dispose of it. In the face of s. 3 (I) of the Act, the District Court was not competent to hear the appeal. Although the object of 1he Act was to give relief to the High Court, it was clear that the Legislature did not grant that relief in respect of pending first appeals. Held, further, that. no costs can ordinarily be granted against a court and the High Court was in error in doing so. Sarjudei v. Rampati Kunwari, 1962 All. L.J. 544 am! Cyril Spencer v. M. H. Spencer, 1955 All. L.J. 307, consi~ered. CrvIL APPJiJLLATJ; JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 784 of 1962. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 13, 1962, of the Allahabad High Court in Spe- cial Appeal No. 82 of 1962. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and B. C. Misra, for the appellant. K. S. Ilajela and C. P. Lul, for respondent No. 1. J.P. Goyal, for the intervener. 19G2. December, 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J.-Whcn we had finished the hearing of the case on December 13, 1962, we intimated to the parties that the appeal was allowed and that our reasons would follow. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether under the provisions of the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act (U. P. XXIV of 195±)-which hereinafter will be referred to ·as the Act-a first appeal in a suit decided prior to the enactment of the Act, involving a valuation of less than ten thousand rupees could be ]962 Lakshmi Narain v. First A.dditiona DiJtricl Juige, Al/a\abad Sinha, C. J. 1962 [, JAJfemi Narain v. First AdditforitJ DiJtricl Judgt, Allahobtid Sinha, C. J. 3!H SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l964]VOL. transferred for hearing and disposal to a District Judge or Additional District Judge. The First Additional District Judge, Allahabad, is the first respondent in this appeal and appeared through counsel at the hearin~. The other respondents, who were the respondents in the main appeal, have not entered appearance and apparently arc not interested in the result of this appeal. .ln order to bring out the points in controvery between the parties it is necessary to state the follow- ing facts. The appellant, a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.