Kerala High Court
Bishop Dr. Mathews Mar Savarios vs Thankachan on 5 March, 2001
ORDER K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.
1. The order in I.A. No. 6/2000 in O.S. 1/2000 dated 14.6.2000 passed by the I Additional District (Special) Court, Ernakulam is under challenge in this C.R.P.
2. O.S. No. 1/2000 is filed by the 1st respondent herein as plaintiff seeking various reliefs including conduct of election to the Managing Committee of the St. George Orthodox Syrian Church, Kadamattom, prohibitory injunction and other directions with regard to the conduct of religious services in the Church. I.A. No. 6/2000 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit seeking appointment of a receiver for the administration of the Church till a Managing Committee takes over the management of the Church. The 9th defendant in the suit and 8th respondent in the I.A. raised the objection that the lower court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable before the Court and as such no order may be passed appointing a receiver for management of the Church during the pendency of the suit. The lower court negatived the contention raised by the 8th defendant with regard to the maintainability of the suit before the lower court and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the suit and to appoint a receiver, and appointed a receiver to manage the affairs of the church. Hence the 8th respondent - 8th defendant has come up in revision before this Court.
3. The plaintiff - 1st respondent has filed the above suit for the District Court, Ernakulam and the District Judge made over the suit to the I Additional District Court, Ernakulam which is the special court designated for trial and disposal of the Church cases.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that S.15 of the C.P.C. stipulates that every suit shall be instituted int eh court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Therefore, he submitted that the above suit filed by the 1st respondent with regard to the management etc. of the plaint Church should have been filed before the Munsiff's Court with whose territorial jurisdiction the Church is situated or if the pecuniary jurisdiction with regard to the reliefs claimed in the suite exceeds the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, it should have been filed before the concerned Subordinate Judge's Court, which has got infinite jurisdiction under the CPC. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the filing of the suit bypassing the Munsiff's Court which is the lowest cadre and Subordinate Judge's Court which is the next higher cadre before the District Court, is contrary to the provisions of S.15 of the C.P.C. directing institution of the suit before the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. Therefore, he vehemently contended that the suit filed before the District Court bypassing the two lower cadre of courts of competent jurisdiction is not maintainable. He has also submitted that under special circumstances when the lower court is not available or under special enactments the District Court is designated as the proper Court for filing the suit, the suit can be filed before the District Court. But the Munsiff's Court or Subordinate Judge's Court are available in this case and there is no speciality with regard to the institution of Church cases. Therefore, there is no reason to file the above suit before the District Court and the District Court to entertain it as against the ordinary rule that suits should be filed before the lowest court of competent jurisdiction.
5. S.2(4) of the C.P.C. defines district which reads as follows:
"(4) 'district', means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a 'District Court'), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court".
6. S.11 of the Civil Courts Act deals with jurisdiction of District Court and Subordinate Judge's Court in original suits which reads as follows:
"11. Jurisdiction of District Court and Subordinate Judge's Court in original suits:-
(1) The jurisdiction of a District Court or a Subordinate Judge's Court extends, subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature.
(2) the jurisdiction of a Munsiff's Court extends to all like suits and proceedings not otherwise exempted from its cognisance of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed fifteen thousand rupees."
7. From the above definition of district under S.2(4) of the C.P.C., it is clear that the District Court is the principal Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of the district and S.11 of the Civil Courts Act gives jurisdiction to the District Court or Subordinate Judge's Court in all original suits and proceedings of civil scenery.
8. S.24 of the C.P.C. deals with general power of transferring the suit which reads as follows:
"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal. (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard; or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-
(a) transfer suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or XXX XXX XXX XXX (3) for the purpose of this section,-
(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judge shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;
XXX XXX XXX XXX (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it."
9. S.24 empowers the District Court to transfer or make over the case to the Additional District Court for trial and disposal. Int his case the suit filed by the 1st respondent before the District Court is made over to the I Addl. District Court by the District Court for trial and disposal, being the special Court designated for trial and disposal of such cases. Therefore the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that special court or the 1st Addl. District Court, Ernakulam has no filing power since the I Addl. Court, Ernakulam is only constituted as special court to try exclusively all the pending cases regarding Malankara Church disputes, is not sustainable since the suit is filed not before the I Addl. District Court as the special court, but the suit is filed before the District Court and only the District Court made over the case to the I Addl. District Court and therefore the I Addl. District Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the same.
10. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that since the Subordinate Judge's Court is vested with infinite jurisdiction, the principal civil court in the district is not the District Court but the Subordinate Judge's Court, is absolutely untenable and that contention is contrary to S.2(4) of the C.P.C. and S.11 of the Civil Courts Act. It is patent from S.2(4) of the CPC that the District Court is the Principal Court of original jurisdiction in the District and Subordinate Judge's Court gets jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits or proceedings of civil nature of infinite jurisdiction by virtue of S.11 of the Civil Courts Act. Though S.11 of the Civil Courts Act confers jurisdiction on the Subordinate Judge's Court to entertain and try suits, the jurisdiction of the District Court as the principal civil court in the district is in no way affected and in fact, jurisdiction co-ordinate along with the District Court is conferred on the Subordinate Judge's Court as per S.11 of the Civil Court Act. Therefore, the fact that the District Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the above suit cannot be disputed.
11. In the decision in Sita Ram v. Balak Ram (AIR 1933 Oudh 154) a Division Bench of the Oudh High Court has observed as follows:
"We therefore think that the more rational, appropriate and beneficial construction to be placed on the word 'competent' as used in this section is to hold that the Court concerned is competent when it can as regards the nature and subject-matter of the case, and as regards its pecuniary value, entertain a transferred suit, but that it does not include competence from the point of view of territorial jurisdiction."
12. In the decision in Kishore Lal v. Baikishan (AIR 1932 Allahabad 660) a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed as follows:
"In our opinion it is open to the High Court or a District Court to transfer a case pending in a subordinate Court to another Court which has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit although it may not at the moment possess territorial jurisdiction to try it."
13. In the decision in Puzhukkamattom Devaswom v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1980 KLT 645) a Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:
"In view of the Government Notification dated 24.10.1966 the suit could have been instituted before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Parur also. But the suit is not an ordinary civil suit. It is a suit of special nature coming under the special provisions of S.92. In such a case, if the suite is filed in any one of the Courts specified in the section the Court cannot order the return of the plaint invoking S.15 simply because the suit could have been filed before a court of lower grade also. In no case where the Court before which the suit is to be instituted is specified by a special provision in the Code, S.15 can be invoked and the plaint ordered to be returned for representation before another court. But at the same time it cannot be said that the District Court is powerless it foes not want to try the suit. The District Court can transfer the suit under S.24(1)(a) of the Code to the subordinate Judge's Court, Parur because under S.92 the Subordinate Judge's Court is also competent to try and dispose of the suit in view of the notification dated 24.10.1966."
14. From the above rulings it is clear that in spite of the fact that the Munsiff's Court and the Subordinate Judge's Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit or dispute of civil nature subject to pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, the District Court being the principal Court of original jurisdiction has got jurisdiction to entertain and try itself or make it over to a subordinate court having competent pecuniary jurisdiction even if it is lacking in territorial jurisdiction. The I Addl. District Court is only constituted as special Court to try the Church cases exclusively as per the Government Notification in G.O. No. 1532/76/Home and dated 30.6.1976 and therefore, the District Court made over the case to the I Addl. District Court for trial and disposal. Even though the concerned Munsiff's Court or the Subordinate Judge's Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the jurisdiction vested in the District Court to entertain such a suit cannot be assailed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the suit ought to have been filed before the lowest court of original jurisdiction and if necessary the same should have been transferred to the I Addl. District Court, Ernakulam under due process of law and institution of the suit directly before the District Court is illegal, is not sustainable. Merely because of the fact that the ordinary procedure of filing suits before the lowest court of competent jurisdiction is not followed, it cannot be contended that the institution of the suit before the District Court in this case is illegal. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the above suit filed before the District Court, Ernakulam is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and therefore, the I Addl. District Court, Ernakulam to which the suit is made over by the District Judge also has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and therefore, the order passed by the lower court appointing a receiver pending disposal of the suit is illegal and unsustainable, is of no force.
15. It is submitted that in another suit with regard to the very same Church another Commissioner was appointed by the Court to collect the income of the Church by way of offerings etc. from the bandarams etc. and therefore, there is no necessity to appoint a fresh Commissioner in this case for the very same purpose. This contention has to be considered by the trial court.
16. It is contended by the 1st respondent that he is not a party to the proceedings in which a Commissioner is allegedly appointed by the Court for the very same purpose. The question whether the Commissioner appointed in the other suit will be sufficient to protect the interests of the parties to the suit and whether the Commissioner appointed in this case is necessary for the same purpose are matters to be considered by the trial court.
In view of what is stated above, the impugned order passed by the lower Court finding that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, negativing the contention of the petitioner, is confirmed and the C.R.P. is dismissed. The lower court will consider the contention with regard to the necessity for appointment of a Commissioner in this suit when the Commissioner already appointed by the Court for the very same purpose is functioning, and pass appropriate orders.