JIBANRAM JESRAJ FIRM AND ORS. Vs. DASURAM MIRJAMAL FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against an order of Mr. B. C. Barua, District Judge, Lower Assam Districts, dated 8 -1 -54, withdrawing Mortgage Suit No. 56 of 1952, pending before the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati, to his own file and then transferring it to the file of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong. The District Judge apparently purported to act under Section 24, Civil P.C., in directing the transfer.

(2.) THE mortgage suit in question was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party against the petitioners on 21 -7 -52 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati. The plaintiffs contend that the suit was not properly instituted before the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati who had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, inasmuch as the mortgaged properties wore admittedly within the territory of Nowgong; and, therefore, the suit under Section 16, Civil P. C, could be filed not in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati, but in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong. It is contended also by the petitioner that inasmuch as the suit had not been properly instituted, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the same, even if he purported to act under Section 24, Civil P.C.

(3.) MR . Ghose has, however, drawn our attention to an old notification, dated 13 -5 -85, under which the Deputy Commissioners of various administrative districts in this State were vested ex -officio with powers of a Subordinate Judge to entertain plaints. This power was eventually taken away from them by virtue of a notification, dated 24 -1 -53, and thus the Deputy Commissioners of the various administrative districts ceased to be ex -officio Subordinate Judges for the purpose of entertaining plaints and suits. Mr. Ghose contends that at the time the suit was instituted, there was, therefore, an ex -officio Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdiction at Nowgong who would have been competent to entertain the plaint. He further argues that there was, therefore, a clear difference between the Subordinate Judge's Court at Nowgong and the Subordinate Judge's Court at Gauhati, and that being so, this plaint could not in any case be presented before the Subordinate Judge when sitting at Gauhati.