Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this case challenges the validity of the City Civil Court Act, being West Bengal Act XXI of 1953, which was passed by the West Bengal Legislature and has received the assent of the President, such assent being published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, dated the 1st September 1953. It is stated to be an Act to establish an additional Civil Court for the City of Calcutta. It is to be called the City Civil Court Act, 1953, and was to come into force on such date as the State Government might by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. For the purposes of this application the following provisions of the Act are important:--- "3. (1). The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Civil Court to be called the City Civil Court. (2). The City Civil Court shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to and subject to the superintendence o the High Court within the meaning of the Letters Patent for the High Court and of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. (1). There shall be appointed a Chief Judge of the City Civil Court and as many other Judges of that Court as the State Government thinks fit. (2). Each of the Judges of the City Civil Court may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on that Court by this Act or by any other law tor the time being in force. 5. (1). The local limits of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court shall be the City of Calcutta. (2). Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) and (4), and of Section 9, the City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not exceeding rupees ten thousand in value. (3). The City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try any proceedings under - (i). the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and (ii). Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in respect of succession certificates. (4). The City Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suit and proceedings of the description specified in the First Schedule. (5). All suits and proceedings which are not triable by the City Civil Court shall continue to be triable by the High Court or the Small Cause Court or any other Court, tribunal or authority, as the case may be, as heretobefore."
(2.) It will be necessary to deal with the First Schedule in some detail later on. It is sufficient to mention here that under Item 5 of the First Schedule, suits and proceedings exceeding Rs, 5,000 in value relating to or arising out of, bills of exchange, hun-dis or other negotiable securities for money as well as letters of credit or letters of advice are excluded from the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court; but suits and proceedings relating to or arising out of, cheques, promissory notes not exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value, which would otherwise have been tried in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta, will now be tried and determined by the City Civil Court. Tho petitioner states that he intends to file a suit under O. XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for a sum of Rs. 3,500 based upon a promissory note, in this High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. He says that his plaint is ready but he has been' prevented from filing the suit because of the provisions of the City Civil Court) Act. The petitioner also challenges the appointment ofi the respt. Sri Bikash Chandra Ghose, Chief Judga of the City Civil Court, on the ground that his appointment is not in accordance with law. Before I proceed further, it will be convenient to refer to the several notifications whereby the City Civil Court was established and the Chief Judge appointed. As I have stated above, the Act was passed by the West Bengal Legislature in 1953, but it was to come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Section 3 lays down that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette; establish a Civil Court to be called the City Civil Court. Three orders were made 011 the 14th February 1957, which were published simultaneously in an extraordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette published on the 20th February 1957, The first notification is No, 1057-], by which the Governor appointed the 23rd day of February 1957, as the date on which the Act shall come into force. By notification No. 1058-J the Governor was pleased to establish with effect from 23rd day of February 1957 a Civil Court to be called a City Civil Court. By notification No. 1059-J, the Governor was pleased to establish with effect from 23rd February 1957, for the Presidency Town of Calcutta the Court of Session, to be called a City Sessions Court. By notification No. 1214-J dated the 20th February 1957, the Governor in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the City Civil Court Act of 1953, was pleased to appoint the respondent No. 1, who was then employed as the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, to be the Chief Judge of the City Civil Court. This notification has not been published in the Gazette yet, or at least was not at the time of the hearing of the application.
(3.) The points taken by Mr. Kar on behalf of the petitioner may be summarised as follows:-- (1) The City Civil Court Act of 1953 is not with-in the competence of the West Bengal Legislature. Therefore it is ultra vires and void. (2) That the provisions of the said Act, in so far as they purport to take away, curtail, restrict or alter the jurisdiction of the High Court, are beyond the competence of the State Legislature, and are therefore ultra vires and void. (3) That the West Bengal Legislature, in constituting and organising a City Civil Court, by passing the said Act, was in fact reorganising and reconstituting the High Court, which is beyond its competence. (4) That the Act deals with subjects which are in pith and substance beyond the competence of the West Bengal Legislature and as such are ultra vires. (5) That the Act is discriminatory, and takes away beneficial advantages conferred on litigants of obtaining summary relief under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore offends against Article 14 of the Constitution. (6) That the appointment of respondent No. 1 is bad, inasmuch as he was appointed even before the City Civil Court came into force and even before the Court was constituted under the Act.;