Skip to content


Firm Babu Lal Girdhari Lal Vs. Seth Kotumal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941All27
AppellantFirm Babu Lal Girdhari Lal
RespondentSeth Kotumal
Excerpt:
.....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 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14..........this court certainly has jurisdiction to grant such a stay order, but we think it is desirable that in the first place an application to this effect should be preferred in the court of the munsif at benares. for the reasons given above we dismiss this application with costs.
Judgment:

Collister, J.

1. This is an application under Section 23(3), Civil P.C. The applicants are coal merchants and contractors at Jharia in the province of Behar. The opposite party manufactures and sells bricks at Benares. The applicants pray that Suit No. 346 of 1939, which has been instituted against them by the opposite party in the Munsif's Court at Benares be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad, where Suit No. 166 of 1939, instituted by the applicants against the opposite party is pending. It is said that the two suits arise out of a contract for the supply of coal dust. It is unnecessary for the purpose of our decision to set out the grounds upon which the transfer is sought. It is admitted that in Suit No. 346 of 1939, pending in the Munsif's Court at Benares, the applicants have raised a plea denying the jurisdiction of that Court. Section 23 postulates that the several Courts concerned shall both have jurisdiction, and it is therefore obvious that in view of the plea of want of jurisdiction which has been taken by the applicants themselves in the Court at Benares this application cannot succeed. If authority is required for this proposition, it is to be found in a single Judge decision of this Court Purna Chandra v. Dhone Kristo ('14) 1 A.I.R. 1914 All. 351 and in a single Judge decision of the Judicial Commissioner's Court at Sind, Gangumal Shewaram v. Nanikram ('32) 19 A.I.R. 1932 Sind. 215. There is also an alternative prayer for stay of proceedings in the Court at Benares pending the decision of the suit at Dhanbad. This Court certainly has jurisdiction to grant such a stay order, but we think it is desirable that in the first place an application to this effect should be preferred in the Court of the Munsif at Benares. For the reasons given above we dismiss this application with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //