S. C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THE Revisionists are defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties for ejectment from premises and for recovery of arrears of rent. Admittedly, the property from which ejectment is sought and in respect of which arrears of rent are claimed is situate at Bareilly. THE revisionists are aggrieved by an order passed by the trial court in the said suit. THE Stamp Reporter has expressed doubt about the maintainability of the Revision at this Bench. Sri Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the provisions of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, for short Amalgamation Order, has submitted that the "High Court of Judicature at Allahabad" is one High Court and there is nothing in the Amalgamation Order to restrict the jurisdiction of the Judges sitting at Lucknow to hear cases arising in the areas comprised in the erstwhile province of Oudh alone. According to him in view of clause 7 the new High Court exercises jurisdiction in respect of the whole of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) and the only effect of Clause 14 is that in respect of the cases arising in the areas comprised in the erstwhile province of Oudh, the Judges sitting at Lucknow alone shall have jurisdiction, in other words this clause deprives the judges sitting at Allahabad of jurisdiction to hear the cases arising within the Oudh area but it does not deprive the Judges sitting at Lucknow of the jurisdiction to hear cases arising in any part of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) which jurisdiction has been conferred under clause 7 of the Order. In support of the argument, apart from relying upon the provisions of the Amalgamation Order, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in re-Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331. THE argument is attractive but does not bear scrutiny.
(2.) PRIOR to the enforcement of the Constitution the State of Uttar Pradesh was known as United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. As the name itself suggests the province comprised of two provinces-the province of Agra and the province of Oudh. The province of Oudh comprised of twelve districts viz. (1) Lucknow, (2) Barabanki, (3) Faizabad, (4) Pratapgarh, (5) Sultanpur, (6) Sitapur, (7) Gonda, (8) Bahraich, (9) Hardoi, (10) Unnao, (11) Rae Bareli and (12) Lakhimpur Kheri. The rest of the districts were comprised in the province of Agra. Although there was one administrative set up for the entire United Provinces there was separate judicial set for the two provinces.1 The highest court for the province of Oudh was known as the Chief Court of Oudh presided over by the Chief Judge and the highest Court for the province of Agra was the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad presided over by the Chief Justice. The Chief Court of Oudh exercised jurisdiction over the twelve districts herein before enumerated while the High Court at Allahabad exercised jurisdiction over the rest of the districts. By the amalgamation order the Chief Court and the High Court were amalgamated and the Amalgamated High Court was given the name High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. With this background a few provisions of the Amalgamation Order which have a bearing on the controversy raised by the learned counsel may be noticed. Clause 3 provides "as from the appointed day the High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh shall be amalgamated and shall constitute one High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad" (emphasis supplied). From the emphasised portion it is apparent that the court is one whether the judges sit at Allahabad or at Lucknow. Clauses 7 (1) and 14 provide as follows:- "7 (1). The new High Court shall have, in respect of the whole of the United Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of any part of that province by either of the existing High Courts." "14. The new High Court, and the Judges and Division Courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint : Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice otherwise directs, such judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court : Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad". Clause 7 (1) prescribes the extent of the jurisdiction that is exercisable by the new High Court. The jurisdiction is the same as was exercisable by the High Court and the Chief Court immediately before the amalgamation, this jurisdiction may be original or appellate or any other jurisdiction. Again the jurisdiction may have been exercised in any part of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. It needs to be emphasised that clause 7 refers to the jurisdiction of the new High Court and not of the Judges of the said Court, sitting at different places. That is prescribed for in clause 14. This clause provides that the Judges shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may appoint. For the appointment of such other places of sitting the Chief Justice's order has to have the approval of the Governor. Now comes the first proviso to this clause. Under the proviso at least two judges of the New High Court have to sit at Lucknow. The arrangement has to continue until the Governor of the State with the concurrence of the Chief Justice otherwise directs. The nomination of the Judges who have to sit at Lucknow has to be made by the Chief Justice. This proviso also indicates the purpose for which judges shall sit at Lucknow. It is in order to exercise jurisdiction and power vesting in the New High Court in respect of cases arising in the areas comprised in the erstwhile province of Oudh. Thus the Judges sitting at Lucknow are vested with the same powers and jurisdiction as are vested in the Judges sitting at Allahabad but such powers and jurisdiction can be exercised only in respect of cases arising in the areas of Oudh. This in my opinion is the only meaning that can be assigned to the words "shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh.........the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court," occurring in the first proviso to clause 14. In view of this I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the first proviso instead of restricting the jurisdiction of the Judges sitting at Lucknow, restricts the jurisdiction of the Judges sitting at Allahabad inasmuch as the latter would not have jurisdiction and power to hear cases arising in Oudh area while the former would have jurisdiction and power to hear cases arising in Oudh area as well as in non Oudh area. The submission of the learned counsel is only partially correct inasmuch as the cases arising in Oudh area have to be heard at Lucknow unless they are transferred to Allahabad under the second proviso to clause 14.
(3.) THERE is nothing in Nasiruddin's case (supra) which militates against the view taken by me. The present revision arises from a case which arose in a non-Oudh area of Uttar Pradesh and in view of the above discussion it cannot be heard at Lucknow. The record of the case shall therefore be transmitted to Allahabad where the revision shall be listed for orders as regards admission.;