Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The aforesaid provisions makes it clear the City Civil Court was established in the City of Bangalore from the appointed date. The said City Civil Court consists of Principal City Civil Judge and such number of other City Civil Judges as the State Government may, in consultation with the High Court determine. Section 3(3)(a) of the BCCC Act makes it clear notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the City of Bangalore. In other words, the BCCC Act does not define the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as it has defined a City Civil Court or a Court of small causes or the High Court. In the absence of defining the Principal City Civil Court under the Act, a deeming provision has been introduced to mean that the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Courts of original jurisdiction. In other words, all the City Civil Courts constituted under the BCCC Act are Principal City Civil Courts of original jurisdiction. However, the said City Civil Court consists of the Principal City Civil Judge and such number of other City Civil Judges as the State Government may in consultation with the High Court determine. Therefore, the Principal City Civil Judge is different from the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. In view of the explicit language employed by the legislature in the BCCC Act the intention has been made very clear that ail the City Civil Courts constituted under the Act are deemed to be Principal City Civil Courts of original jurisdiction. The definition of Judge makes it clear that there is no difference between Principal City Civil Judge and City Civil Judge of the City Civil Court.

11. However, only one Principal City Civil Judge is constituted and other Judges who preside over the City Civil Court would be Additional Judges. Section 5 of the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act of 1979 which deals with the power of Judges who preside over the City Civil Court makes it amply clear subject to the other provisions of the BCCC Act, each of the Judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the City Civil Court by this Act or any other law for the time being in force. It also makes it clear that the Principal City Civil Judge may, subject to the general or special orders of the High Court, from time to time, make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the City Civil Court among the Judges thereof. Then Section 6 of the BCCC Act provides for filling up of the vacancy of the office of the Principal City Civil Judge in the event of the incumbent is prevented from performing his duties for any of the reasons mentioned in Section 6(1) of the BCCC Act. It clearly provides that next senior most Judge shall without relinquishing his ordinary duties assume the charge of the office of the Principal City Civil Judge and shall continue in charge thereof until the same is assumed by the Principal City Civil Judge duly appointed thereto. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 makes it clear while in charge of the office of the Principal City Civil Judge under Sub-section (1) the senior most Judge shall, subject to the general or special orders of the High Court issued in this behalf, exercise all powers and perform all the duties of the Principal City Civil Judges.

17. The other submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the Court presided over by the Additional City Civil Judge is inferior to the Court presided over by the Principal City Civil Judge and in view of the definition of the word 'Court' in the Act of 1996 it categorically states it does not include any Civil Court of grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, the Courts presided over by the Additional City Civil Court cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction of the District. This argument proceeds on the assumption that the Court presided over by the Principal City Civil Judge is superior to the Courts presided over by Additional City Civil Judge. In the entire scheme of BCCC Act there is no scope for such interpretation. On the contrary, it is specifically enacted that notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be the Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the City of Bangalore. No distinction has been made between the City Civil Court presided over by the Principal City Civil Judge and the City Civil Court presided over by Additional Judges. It is also clear from Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 where it has been categorically stated that all Civil Courts have jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all the suits and other proceedings of a civil nature and arising within the City of Bangalore, it is clear that every City Civil Court has jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings. The suits and proceedings originate from each City Civil Court and it does not commence by transfer from the Court presided over by the Principal City Civil Judge. At the most on allotment it comes before each City Civil Court. The said order of allotment is an administrative order and not a judicial order of transfer. In view of the language employed in Section 5 the Principal City Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to even distribute or allot the work. That power is conferred on him by general or special order of the High Court. Therefore, it is clear that the said power of distribution of work and allotment of cases is purely in the nature of administrative work and referable to the orders to be passed by the High Court from time to time and but for that power conferred on him there is no distinction in law between the Principal City Civil Judge and the Additional City Civil Judges. In fact Section 4 of the BCCC Act deals with subordination to and superintendence by the High Court, and states that the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to and subject to the control and superintendence of the High Court. The BCCC Act designedly fails to state that the Additional Judge of the City Civil Court are not subordinate or inferior to the Principal City Civil Judge. The scheme of Bangalore City Civil Court provides for only one tire of Courts. No Court is inferior or superior. The senior most City Civil Judge would be appointed as Principal City Civil Judge. All are equal. At the most he could be termed as first among equals. By no stretch of imagination it could be said either he is superior to other Additional Judges or other Additional Judges are in any way inferior to Principal City Civil Judge. Similarly the Court presided over by him is not superior to any other Court, which is presided by Additional Judges. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner in this regard.

18. Insofar as deeming provision contained in Section 3(3)(a) of the BCCC Act is concerned, the said provision makes it clear notwithstanding anything contained in law, the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the City of Bangalore. No doubt, in statutes the expression 'deemed' is commonly used for the purpose of creating the statutory fiction i.e., for the purpose of extending the meaning of some term to a subject-matter which it does not properly designate. When a person is deemed to be something the only meaning possible is that whereas he is not in reality that something the Act or Parliament requires him to be treated as it were. The phrase 'shall be deemed' is frequently used in statutes when the legislature wants to confer a status or an attribute to a person or thing which is not intrinsically possessed by that person or thing on whom this conferment is made. It is commonly used in statutes to extend the application of a provision of law to a class not otherwise amenable to it. Under these circumstances, when the aforesaid statute states the City Civil Court shall deemed to be Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the City of Bangalore thus it means, in reality the City Civil Court is not a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If the BCCC Act had defined the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and it conferred such power on any other Court, by virtue of a deeming provision, then it could be said those other Courts in reality are not the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. However, the BCCC Act designedly has not defined the Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction. By deeming provision, the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. It only means all the City Civil Courts constituted under the Act are the Principal City Civil Courts of original jurisdiction. But for this deeming provision, there is no Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction at all under the BCCC Act. If that is so, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court which has entertained arbitral proceedings in the instant case is not the Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction cannot be accepted. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the said submission also.