R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Against an order dated 26-5-1993 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Sultanpur, petitioner has filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad. In the Revision, she has also filed a stay application before the Board of Revenue in which 28-3-1994 has been fixed for its disposal. As the petitioner apprehended realisation of stamp duty in pursuance of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, she has filed this writ petition with the following prayer ; (i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from realising the deficiency of stamp duty and penalty in pursuance of the impugned order dated 26-5-1993 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Stamp Case No. 641 of 1992-93 State of U. P v. Smt. Prabhawati, District Sultanpur, till the disposal of Revision No. 850(s) of 1993-94 pending before the Respondent No. 1. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandomus directing the respondent not to adopt corecive method for recovery of the amount in pursuance of the impugned order dated 26-5-1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 tilt the disposal of Revision No. 850(s) of 1993-94 pending before the Respondent No. 1. (iii) issue any oteer suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.
(2.) In this writ petition Board of Revenue, Allahabad, Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Sultanpur and Collector District Magistrate, Sultanpur have been impleaded as Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Recovery in pursuance of the order of Assistant Commissioner, Sultanpur is not to be made by Board of Revenue. Only the Respondents No. 2 and 3 namely the Assistant Commissioner, Sultanpur and Collector, Sultanpur are entitled to recover it.
(3.) District Sultanpur is in Oudh over which Lucknow Bench of this Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction in view of proviso to Paragraph 14 of United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the amalgamation order) Supreme Court in Nasiruddin v. S. T. A. Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331, has held that if cause of action arises party Oudh and partly in the areas outside Oudh, the writ petition can be filed before this Court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow. It is further laid down therein, relevant extract from which is reproduced below, that if the original order was passed by an Authority outside the Oudh area but the appellate or revisional order has been passed by the authority within the Oudh area, writ petition can be filed before this Court either at Lucknow or at Allahabad : 'The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression 'cause of action' in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression 'cause of action' is well known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. It the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum convenience. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court, similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen partly within specified areas in Oudh and partly outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action.';