Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision petition against the order of the District Judge Balotra dated the 13th of January, 1954 confirming on appeal the order of the Munsif Balotra dated the 27th of December, 1950 by which the plaint of the plaintiff was ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 for the reason that court in which the suit was instituted had no jurisdiction to try it.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that they carried on business at Karachi in the name of Ramkaran Bhanwarlal and that Ramkaran, Bhanwarlal, Rameshwar and Ram Rakh are the members of the joint family concern. It is also stated that after the partition of India, the firm at Karachi was closed down and the plaintiffs came and settled in India as displaced person. THE suit was instituted in the court of the Munsif, Balotra under sec 4 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant bank was not a displaced bank within the definition of the term displaced person as given in sec. 3 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948 as amended by the Amending Act No. 68 of 1950. THE defendant pleaded that the court of the Munsif at Balotra had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the plaintiffs were not the displaced person as defined in the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act and also for the reason that the defendant bank was a displaced person. THE learned Munsif, Balotra framed a preliminary issue as to whether the plaintiffs were displaced persons and the defendant bank was not a displaced person and after having tried that issue, ordered the return of the plaint as noted above. THE learned Munsif observed that the plaintiffs had their ancestral business at Balotra even when they may have also carried on business at Karachi, and for this reason, the learned Munsif was not prepared to hold that the plaintiffs were displaced persons. It was also observed that the defendant bank was a displaced person as a notification was issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation No. SRO 866 dated the 26th of May, 1953 stating that the defendant bank was a displaced person. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Balotra did not go into the points which weighed with the lower court but confirmed the order for the reason that the plaintiffs failed to give evidence to show that they resided at Karachi before the disturbances. It was also noted by the learned Judge that the plaintiffs had their business at Balotra from before, and also that the plaintiffs failed to produce a certificate, which it was stated by Rameshwar, they had obtained regarding their status of displaced persons. THE order of the first court was therefore, confirmed in appeal. THE plaintiffs have come to this court in revision and the learned counsel of the petitioners has urged that the lower appellate court was wrong in noting in its judgement that there was no evidence on the point that plaintiffs resided at Karachi before the partition. THE statement of Rameshwar has been referred to on this point. It is also urged that the fact that the plaintiffs had also some business at Balotra would not militate against their holding the status of displaced persons in the event of their showing the existence of the circumstances ,which would bring their case within the definition of sec. 3 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act. It is also stated that the plaintiffs resided at Karachi before the partition and they carried on business in the name of Ramkaran Bhanwarlal which was closed on account of the disturbances in Pakistan and that the plaintiffs migrated to India after the partition. The learned counsel for the opposite party has urged that even though there may have been evidence regarding the residence of the plaintiffs at Karachi before partition, there is hardly any evidence on the point of the plaintiffs' migration to India after the 1st of March, 1947 and for this reason, it should be held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are displaced persons. It is also contended that the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1949 was repealed by sec. 59 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 and the Munsif, Balotra had, therefore, lost jurisdiction in the matter. It is further urged that the defendant bank is a displaced bank and for this reason, no suit could be instituted against it under S. 4 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948. It may be noted that the lower appellate court was evidently wrong in noting in its judgment that there was no evidence on record as regards the fact that the plaintiffs resided at Karachi before partition or before the disturbances. There is the statement of Rameshwar on behalf of the plaintiffs who has stated that the firm of the plaintiffs carried on its business for about 20 years before partition at Karachi and that the said firm was closed on account of disturbances. The witness has however, not stated anything as regards the date of migration of the plaintiffs from Karachi to India. In para 3 of the plaint, it has been stated by the plaintiffs that they migrated to India after the partition of India into two dominions of Pakistan and India. The defendant denied the allegation in para 3 and stated that the plaintiffs resided at Balotra from before and they were not, therefore, displaced persons. Nothing was stated about the residence of the plaintiffs at Karachi and their business in the name of Ramkaran Bhanwarlal. The defendant bank however, admitted that there was a firm Ramkaran Bhanwarlal at Karachi and that it had certain dealing with the bank. Reading the pleadings in para 2 together with the evidence of Rameshwar it transpires that the plaintiffs resided at Karachi before partition and carried on business in the name of Ramkaran Bhanwarlal and they migrated to India after partition. Disregard of evidence on record of the lower appellate court entitles the plaintiffs to come to this court under sec. 115. The first court lost site of the definition of the displaced persons in observing that the plaintiffs had ancestral business at Balotra. That court came to the conclusion merely from the fact of the plaintiffs' having a business at Balotra and the court lost site of the essential facts of the residence of the plaintiffs at Karachi and their migration to India after partition. The plaintiffs may have had some ancestral business at Balotra, but that would not deprive them from being displaced persons, in case they could show that they resided at Karachi and had settled there for business before partition and that they had migrated to India on account of partition or on account of fear of disturbances, etc. etc. In the present case, when the plaintiffs have established that they resided at Karachi for about 20 years, and carried on business in the firm named Ramkaran Bhanwarlal and they migrated to India after partition, there is no reason, to hold that they are not entitled to the status of displaced persons merely because they also owned some ancestral business at Balotra. Coming next to the question regarding the status of the defendant bank, it may be noted that though the defendant bank may be a displaced bank, it cannot be assumed that it is also a displaced person necessarily for that reason. The definition of a displaced bank is different from the definition of a displaced person. The defendant bank may be a displaced bank but for that reason it cannot be taken to be a displaced person within the definition is S. 3 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act Hargundas D. W. 1 who is stated to be the manager of the defendant bank at Ajmer, has stated that the bank has still got its head office at Hyderabad in Pakistan and that the branches of the said bank were opened in India, both at Ajmer and at Kalyan after partition for the purpose of helping the displaced persons in this country. The fact that the defendant bank has still not its head office at Hyderabad in Pakistan is sufficient for determination of the issue against the defendant. In order that the defendant may be regarded as a displaced person it was very necessary for it to show that it migrated from Pakistan to India after the 1st of March, 1947. The defendant bank, therefore, cannot, claim the status of a displaced person within the meaning of the term as defined in S. 3 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948. By virtue of sec. 4 the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, the present suit lay to the court of the Munsif, Balotra, as the plaintiffs were displaced persons and the defendant bank was not a displaced person and the plaintiffs resided within the jurisdiction of the court of the Munsif, Balotra. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 600/14/-only and the Munsif was competent to entertain the suit of that valuation. The Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act has been repealed no doubt by section 59 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 but as this suit was instituted on the 30th of March, 1950, the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948 will have no bearing on the proceedings of the present suit. The revision application is allowed, the order of the lower court regarding the return of the plaint is set aside and the case is remanded to the court of the Munsif, Balotra for proceeding according to law. The costs of this revision and of the appeal in lower court shall abide the result of the suit in the first court. . ;