Mutasaddi Lal Vs. Mule Mal - Court Judgment
.....xii of 1887 (bengal, n.w.p. and assam civil courts act), sections 8(2) and 21(3) - assignment to additional judge of cases coming from a particular district--jurisdiction. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9..........cases coming from the muzaffarnagar district, and it is in pursuance of those orders that the present additional judge entertained the appeal in the present case. it is contended that the district judge had no power to make over the work of the muzaffarnagar district to the additional judge and that the word assign in section 21, sub-section (3), of the civil courts act does not refer to action to be taken by the district judge but to action to be taken by the local government. there is no section in the act which empowers the local government to assign to an additional judge work which in the ordinary course would come before a district judge, but there is a provision in section 8, sub-section (2), to the effect that an additional judge shall discharge any of the functions of the.....
1. On November, the 24th, I called upon the Additional Judge to explain how he came to exercise jurisdiction in this case and to forward to this Court, copies of any general or special orders bearing upon the question. The report now made by the Additional Judge and the copies of orders submitted by him show that in 1907 the District Judge of Meerut assigned to the Additional Judge all appeals, applications and miscellaneous cases coming from the Muzaffarnagar district, and it is in pursuance of those orders that the present Additional Judge entertained the appeal in the present case. It is contended that the District Judge had no power to make over the work of the Muzaffarnagar district to the Additional Judge and that the word assign in Section 21, Sub-section (3), of the Civil Courts Act does not refer to action to be taken by the District Judge but to action to be taken by the Local Government. There is no Section in the Act which empowers the Local Government to assign to an Additional Judge work which in the ordinary course would come before a District Judge, but there is a provision in Section 8, Sub-section (2), to the effect that an Additional Judge shall discharge any of the functions of the District Judge which the District Judge may assign to him. It is quite 'clear to me that the District Judge had power to assign appeals and other eases coming from the Muzaffarnagar district to the Additional Judge. Therefore the Additional Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the present case. The application for revision fails and is dismissed with costs.