BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The question that was raised in this appeal is whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of an order passed by the learned Magistrate sentencing the plaintiff to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. In case of continuing further trade without licence to pay a daily fine of Rs. 40.00. The facts are nut in dispute that the plaintiff was carrying on a business after obtaining a trade licence. Thereafter on 12/09/1984 the plaintiff appellant was served with a notice of summons under Section 537(2) and 437(1)(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. By the said summons the plaintiff appellant was asked to appear before learned Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta to answer the charges and the complaint against him made under the aforesaid Sections. Pursuant to the said summons the plaintiff appellant appeared before the learned Municipal Magistrate and pleaded guilty. The plaintiff appellant was aggrieved by the second part of the sentence by which the plaintiff was required to pay a daily fine of Rs. 40.00 as fine if he carries on business without licence. The plaintiff did not challenge the other punishment imposed by the learned Magistrate before this Court in criminal revisional jurisdiction nut filed a suit for declaration that the said notices Were bad, illegal and liable to be quashed. The main grievance of the appellant was that the appellant was carrying on manufacturing business and the municipal authorities have charged him for carrying on manufacturing business without obtaining health licence and on that ground lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate whereupon this punishment was imposed.
(2.) Before the court below an injunction petition was filed but the same was rejected by the court below on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to in interfere with the punishment imposed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22/05/1986 this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the civil court has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to entertain the suit and to grant relief inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has entertained a complaint and imposed a punishment without the authority of law inasmuch as, firstly, no health licence was required for the purpose of carrying on manufacturing business and secondly the learned Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs. 500.00 for the alleged offence which the appellant has committed. But the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to put restrictions on the appellant's right to carry on trade by imposing a fine of Rs. 40.00 per day in case the appellant carries on business without obtaining licence. The appellant is aggrieved by the second part of the fine.;