S.Chatterjee, J. - (1.) A short but an interesting point has arisen in the instant case. The opposite party has filed a Title Suit No. 520 of 1985 now pending before the 13th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the present petitioners/defendants for dissolution of the partnership firm "some other company" and for declaration that the Second Deed of Partnership dated 15-1-79 is void illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and for accounts and other reliefs as stated in the plaint. By an order, dated 24-8-87 the Learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta decided the preliminary issue as to the valuation and maintenance of the suit in the affirmative, and feeling aggrieved the defendants moved a revision application in the Hon'ble High Court and by order, dated 18th September, 1987 S. K. Mukherji, J. directed both parties to exchange affidavits and the matter would appears in the list as "contested application" after long vacation of the Court. In the Trial Court, the plaintiff also filed an application for the appointment of Receiver and the date was fixed for hearing on 20-11-87, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants to the effect that till the jurisdiction point is decided the hearing of the application for the appointment of Receiver may be adjourned. Thereafter for various grievances the petitioners/defendants filed an application on 4th of December, 1987 in the Court of the Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta for transfer of Title Suit No. 520 of 1983 and Misc. Case No. 343 of 1987 arising out of the said suit pending before the Learned Judge 13th Bench to some other Court having jurisdiction to try the same. The Learned Chief Judge City Civil Court at Calcutta by order No. 5, dated 10.2.87 dismissed the Misc. Case No. 1174 of 1987 holding inter alia that the application for transfer filed by the defendants making allegations against the Court concerned where the suit is pending has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The grounds upon which the petitioners sought to transfer the suit do not fall within, the scope of either Section 10 or Section 11 of the City Civil Court Act and as such the Chief Judge, City Civil Court could not enter into a question whether the apprehension of the petitioners is reasonable or not.
(2.) Being aggrieved the petitioners/defendants have immediately come to this Court challenging the impugned order in revision. The only point has arisen as to the scope of Sections 10 and 11 of the City Civil Court Act. It has to be seen as to whether the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta has the power to transfer a suit from one Court to another on the ground where a party apprehends that he will not obtain fair justice before a particular Court. The Learned Court below having discussed the scope of Sections 10 and 11 of the City Civil Court Act found that sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the City Civil Court Act empowers the Chief Judge to make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the distribution of business of the City evil Court amongst the Judge thereof. Accordingly, it was found that sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the City Civil Court Act empowers the Chief Judge to withdraw a suit from one Bench and transfer it to another Bench either for reasons specified in Section 11 of the Act or where the Chief Judge is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do nor ensure proper distribution of business. The grounds of reasonable apprehension of a party of not obtaining fair justice does not come within the scope of Sections 10 and 11 of the City Civil Court Act and as such the Learned Chief Judge found that the application filed by the defendants on that score is not maintainable.
(3.) Naturally this Court has to examine the entire scope of Sections 10 and 11 of the City Civil Court Act along with comparative study of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. For better appreciation both Sections 10 and 11 of the City Civil Court at Calcutta are set down below: - Sec. 10: Subject to such rules, the Chief Judge may, from time to time, make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the Court among the various Judges thereof. Sec. 11: Save as hereinafter otherwise provided, when two or more of the Judges sitting together differ on any question, the opinion of the majority shall prevail; and if the Court is equally divided the Chief Judge, if he is one of the Judges so differing, or in his absence, the Judge first in rank and precedence of the Judges so differing, shall have the casting voice.;