Baby Finance And Investments P. Ltd. And ... vs Jayashree Srinivasamurthy And Anr. on 20 July, 1998
17. A meaningful interpretation of the word 'suits' in the context of statutory operation of the said provision of law in relation to its applicability as far as it relates to unnumbered suits should alone be given which requires that the word 'suits' should not be given a narrow and restricted meaning and the said word in its wider amplitude must be tested as to whether this would mean and include unnumbered suits pending in the High Court. A suit is nothing but a legal proceeding or legal action which is said to be pending when it remains undecided, unsettled, unsolved etc. In other words, the cause remains pending and it may also be stated that the matter is not concluded. Viewed from another angle, when the suit was presented into the registry of the High Court, it was done in a competent court of law in accordance with the law as it was at that point of time, not yet numbered, in other words the filing of the suit by putting up the file among the records of the court has not taken as it is only in the state of the suit having been presented before the Registry of the court. This subtle difference of presentation of the suit or filing of the suit as explained above does not make a difference at all when the suits stand transferred to the City Civil Court by operation of law. It is altogether a different situation if such transfer is effected at the instance of the party or by the order of the court. When such transfer is effected by the operation of law as explained in Bench decision of this Court reported in S.R. Narayana Ayyar v. Mavalathapa Veerankutti (1958) 1 M.L.J. 264, wherein the same question of law was canvassed and decided holding that the question of payment of additional court-fee does not arise on such transfers. It is to be seen that the language couched in Section 8 of Act 29 of 1955 is in pari materia with that of the Section 4 of Act 28 of 1995.