Skip to content


Raja Ram and ors. Vs. Chhotay Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All332
AppellantRaja Ram and ors.
RespondentChhotay Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 2. the first ground of revision is that no consent of parties can take away the jurisdiction of a court and that the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction. it is not quite clear from the order complained of that the learned district judge had refused to exercise jurisdiction; the form of the case is clearly one coming under section 92, civil p.bennet, j.1. this is an application in revision by the plaintiffs against an order of the learned district judge of moradabad, dated 4th february 1929. this order is to the following effect:the parties agree that this suit stand over pending a final decision by a competent court whether this is or is not a public trust.2. the first ground of revision is that no consent of parties can take away the jurisdiction of a court and that the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction. it is not quite clear from the order complained of that the learned district judge had refused to exercise jurisdiction; but a later order of the district judge dated 16th april 1929 does in our opinion amount to a definite refusal to exercise jurisdiction. this case was of a very ordinary nature, a suit by the.....
Judgment:

Bennet, J.

1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiffs against an order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad, dated 4th February 1929. This order is to the following effect:

The parties agree that this suit stand over pending a final decision by a competent Court whether this is or is not a public trust.

2. The first ground of revision is that no consent of parties can take away the jurisdiction of a Court and that the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction. It is not quite clear from the order complained of that the learned District Judge had refused to exercise jurisdiction; but a later order of the District Judge dated 16th April 1929 does in our opinion amount to a definite refusal to exercise jurisdiction. This case was of a very ordinary nature, a suit by the plaintiffs with the permission of the Legal Remembrancer asking for the relief that the defendants should be removed from being pujaris or trustees of a certain public trust and that another trustee should he appointed and other reliefs given. The form of the case is clearly one coming under Section 92, Civil P.C., and only the Court of the District Judge has jurisdiction to try such a suit. The order of the District Judge requiring the parties to have the decision of a competent Court, by which he apparently meant the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, is an order therefore requiring the suit to be decided by a Court which has no jurisdiction to decide it. We consider that the learned District Judge has refused to exercise a jurisdiction which he alone can exercise and accordingly we allow this revision and we set aside his order of 4th February 1929 and his order of 16th April 1929 and we direct that he do proceed to try this suit according to law. As the parties are both in fault, because they agreed to the order of 4th February 1929 we direct that the parties should pay their own costs in this Court.


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