ROA BAHADUR THAKUR KARTAR SINGH Vs. AB AHAD BURZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision must succeed. It appears that the learned District Judge, Baramulla, has not at all applied his mind to the facts of the case or the law bearing thereon. All that he had to consider was the application for restoration of the application for restoration of the suit which had been dismissed for default and there was nothing in law to restrict his power to dispose of the application. The stage for return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court could arise only after the restoration of the suit. The impugned order being manifestly illegal cannot be sustained.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. Sham Lal is that since the village where the immovable property in question is situate had been taken out of the civil district of Baramulla and included in the civil district of Srinagar by virtue of Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Law Department Notification No. S. R. O. 91 dated 12th February, 1969, the District Judge, Baramulla, ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter and the application for restoration ought to have been presented before the court at Srinagar. I regret I am unable to accede to this contention, as it has absolutely no legal foundation. Even though an area may be taken out of the jurisdiction of a court which is seized of a suit and transferred to another court it does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to continue to deal with the suit which is pending before it unless, of course the business of the court is also transferred to the new court or the jurisdiction of the court is taken away by law in express terms or by necessary implication Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in Chokkalinga Pillay V. Velayudha Mudaliar and others, A. I. R. 1925, Madras, 117, (D. B.) Ramier V. Muthu Krishna Ayyar and others, A. I. R. 1932 Madras, 418 (Special Bench) Mukhanlal Lolaram and others, V. Pancham Lal Sheoprasad A. I. R. 1933 Nagpur, 318 Ishwer Matho and anothers V. Naipal Singh and ors. A. I. R. 1956 Patna 280 (D.B.) and Kanulal V. Daudas and others A. I. R. 1957 Rajasthan, 214.

(3.) IN Chokkalinga Pillay V. Velayudha Mudaliar and others, A. I. R. 1925 Madras, 117 it was held as follows : - "The jurisdiction of a court consists in its power to entertain suits, and when once a suit has been properly entertained, the jurisdiction is not removed unless it is specifically so done by the order of a competent authority. Once the suit has been entertained the remaining proceedings taken therein are not taken by reason of any particular territorial jurisdiction, but in the exercise of the powers vested in the court to try suits generally and consequently the only time at which the territorial jurisdiction comes into operation is at the time of filing the suit. Once the court is seized of case it has jurisdiction to try it to its conclusion unless there is any reason for holding that that jurisdiction has been removed, though the subject matter of the suit may be transferred to another court in the meanwhile." In Ramier V. Muthu Krishna Ayyar and others, A. I. R. 1932 Madras, 418, it was laid down as under: - "Unless the language of a High Court notification affecting the change of venue is plain, a notification affecting a change of jurisdiction for the future cannot be interpreted as affecting a transfer of past business under S. 150." In Makhanlal Lolaram and others V. Pancham Lal Sheoprasad A. I. R. 1933, Nagpur, 318, it has been held: - "Unless pending cases are expressly transferred by a notification affecting a change in the territorial jurisdiction of a court, or unless there is a specific provision in any enactment to the same effect, the court in which the suit or appeal was instituted does not cease to have jurisdiction to decide the matter despite the change in its territorial jurisdiction." Again in Ishwar Mahto and another V. Naipal Singh and others A. I. R. 1956 Patna, 280, Ahmad J. expressed the view of the law in the following words: - .........the rule of law is that once a court is legally put in seisin of a case, it continues to be in seisin of it till it is finally adjudicated by that court unless the case is transferred from there in due course of law or its jurisdiction to dispose of the suit finally is ended by legislation in express terms or by necessary implication." In Ranulal V. Daudas and others, A. I. R. 1957 Rajasthan, 241, it has been observed as follows: - ".........the general principle of law undoubtedly is that where a court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding at the time of its institution such jurisdiction is not lost simply by the subsequent transfer of the area or territory with reference to which the suit or proceeding was instituted."