T.V. Sivaraj Alias T.V. Sivaraj Rahiman ... vs M. Sadasiva Idangapirander Alias M. ... on 13 July, 1967
7. It seems to me that the contention that during the summer recess the Vacation Civil Judge was the only Judge who had jurisdiction and that the regular Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam had no jurisdiction to pass the order, is untenable. The provision vesting jurisdiction in the Vacation Civil Judge is not, in my opinion, intended to take away the jurisdiction which previously the Subordinate Judge had, to dispose of a matter which was properly pending before him if he was inclined to work during the vacation and if the parties raised no objection thereto; which is precisely the case here. The decision in Venkatesa Ayyangar v. Kamalammal (1912) 22 M.L.J. 212 and Rumdas Chakarbatti v. The Official Liquidator, Cotton Ginning Co. Ltd., Cawnpore I.L.R. (1887) 9 All. 366 cited by Sri Vedantachari for the respondent plaintiff show that judgments pronounced on holidays are not void. The first point, therefore, fails. Further in view of the order I propose to make modifying the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, the point is academic and need not be pursued further.