Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Jajodia And Ors. vs Brij Bhushan Agarwal on 30 November, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1993(0)MPLJ603
ORDER B.C. Varma, J.
1. The question for decision in this revision is whether a civil suit of the value of more than Rs. 20,000/- can be directly instituted in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge?
2. Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (called hereinafter as the Act) (Act. No. 19 of 1958) prescribes the limit of original jurisdiction of Civil Courts. According to it, Court of Civil Judge (Class II) can entertain, hear and determine any suit or original proceeding of a value not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-, Civil Class I not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and the Court of District Judge and the Court of Additional District Judge shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceeding without restriction as regards value. According to Section 7, the Court of the District Judge shall be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the Civil district. Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 which has been substituted by M.P. Act No. 7 of 1980 with retrospective effect, is as follows:--
"(2) An Additional Judge to the Court of a District Judge, an Additional District Judge and an Additional Judge to the Court of an Additional District Judge shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which the District Judge may, by general or special order, assign to him and in the discharge of such functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge".
It will be useful to quote Section 8 also, that section reads as follows:--
"8. Appointment of Additional Judges. -- (1) An Additional Judge or Judges to the Court of District Judge, Additional District Judge, Civil Judge Class I or Civil Judge Class II may, whenever it appears necessary or expedient, be appointed to the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge or Civil Judge Class I or Civil Judge Class n, as the case may be and such Additional Judge shall exercise the jurisdiction of the Court to which he is appointed and the powers of the Judge thereof, subject to any general or special orders of the authority by which he is appointed as to the Class or Value of the suit which he may try, hear or determine.
(2) An Officer may be appointed an Additional Judge of one or more Courts and an Officer who is a Judge of one Court may be appointed an Additional Judge of another Court or of other Courts.''
3. With formation of the Higher Judicial Service in the State of Madhya Pradesh, persons belonging to this class of service are appointed either District Judges or Additional Judges to the Court of District Judges. According to Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, they are competent to discharge any of the functions of a District Judge including the functions of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which the District Judge may by general or special order, assign to them and in the discharge of such functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 7, when read with Section 8, and particularly the clause "... such Additional Judge shall exercise the jurisdiction of the Court to which he is appointed and the powers of the Judge thereof," as appearing in Section 8, make it clear that when a person is appointed an Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, he exercises the jurisdiction of that Court, namely, the Court of District Judge, and is also entitled to exercise the same powers, subject of course, to any general or special orders of the authority by which he is appointed as to the class or the value of the suit which he may try, hear or determine. Thus, an Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge appointed in any district has the same powers as the District Judge has, and is entitled to exercise jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge. He also is entitled to exercise functions of Principal Civil Court jurisdiction like the District Judge himself. That being the present position after the substitution of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 and Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 by M.P. Act No. 7 of 1980, there is no substance in the argument that a suit of the value of more than Rs. 20,000/- cannot be originally instituted in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge.
4. In the present case, a suit covered by Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure was instituted directly in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur. Objection was taken that he has no jurisdiction to try that suit which should have been filed before the District Judge. This objection has been repelled by the trial Court and in view of what I have discussed above, that order must be upheld. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, appearing for the applicants, however, argued that so long as there is no general or special order by the appointing authority namely the State Government, authorising the concerned Additional Judge to exercise all powers of a District Judge and to function as District Court, the Additional Judge could not entertain the suit which could only be filed and tried by the District Judge himself. True it is that in accordance with Section 8(1) of the Act, the Additional Judge is to exercise powers of the Judge of the Court to which he is appointed as Additional Judge, is subject to any general or special order of the authority by which he is appointed, but it is difficult to hold that in absence of any such general or special orders, he cannot exercise jurisdiction of that Court or exercise all powers of the Judge to which he is appointed. Such phrase appearing in Section 244 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 came for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court, in Gram Panchayat, Gorakhpur v. Khushali, 1973 MPLJ 105. It was held that the phrase "subject to the rules made in this behalf" connote either (a) that the power conferred in the section can be exercised even in the absence of any rules which may be made, but the rules if and when made will have overriding effect or (b) that the power conferred cannot be exercised unless and until rules are made. It was said that the latter position generally arises when the Legislature deliberately leaves the law incomplete, to be completed, in the matter of details, by delegated legislation. Which of the two meanings the expression connotes will depend on the particular context in which the power is conferred and in view of the scheme and connected provisions of the Act. Where the law is complete and the exercise of power is already regulated by it, the first meaning will fit in and the expression should be read as "subject to rules if any made in this behalf", the Rules being only supplementary in that case. In my opinion, the reading of Section 8 of the Act and the context in which the words "subject to any general or special orders of the authority by which he is appointed" only mean that in a case where there exists any general or special orders of the authority, the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court to which he is additional shall be in accordance with that order. However, it is difficult to say that such Additional Judge will not be competent to exercise jurisdiction and function as the Court to which he is additional in absence of such general or special orders of the authority by which he is appointed. The terms of Section 8 make it clear that such Additional Judge shall exercise jurisdiction of the court to which he is appointed and the powers of the Judge thereof. To me the law in that regard appears to be complete and the exercise of powers well defined by the section itself. The order by the State Government if and when passed as envisaged by the latter clause beginning with "subject to...." can be treated only as supplementary. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in absence of any such order as contemplated by Section 8, the Additional Judge can well function as a Court to which he is Additional and can exercise jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case, the Additional Judge even in absence of any order of the State Government as contemplated by Section 8 of the Act, can well function as the Court of District Judge and can exercise the jurisdiction of that Court.
5. I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the impugned order holding that the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge is competent to try a suit under Order 37, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure as Principal Court of civil original jurisdiction like the District Judge himself.
6. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.