Pathak, J. - (1.) THIS reference by a Division Bench raises some impor tant questions concerning the respective areas of jurisdiction of the judges of this Court sitting at Allahabad and the judges of this Court sitting at Lucknow.
(2.) IN the instant writ petition the following four questions have been refer red for the opinion of the Full Bench: "1. Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented at Allahabad? 2. Can the Judges sitting at Allaha bad summarily dismiss a case presented at Allahabad pertaining to the jurisdic tion of the Lucknow Bench? 3. Can a case pertaining to the juris diction of the Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at Allahabad, be decided finally by the judges sitting at Allahabad, without there being an order as contem plated by the second proviso to Art. 14 of the U P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948? 4. What is the meaning of the ex pression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first pro viso tc Art. 14 of the High Courts (Am algamation) Order, 1948? Has this ex pression reference to the place where the case originated or to the place of sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court?" In the connected writ petition, Sri H. N. Tilhari. learned counsel for the petitioners, at first questioned the com petence of the reference to a Full Bench but subsequently he abandoned the ob jection and. indeed, pressed for a deci sion of the question which arises therein. Having regard to the terms of the order of reference, we have framed the follow ing question and learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this is the question:- "5. Whether this writ petition can be entertained and heard by the judges sit ting at Lucknow?"
(3.) AT the outset it is necessary, we think, to set out the historical back ground against which the questions must be considered.;