Skip to content


Nagar Palika, Maheshwar Vs. Balwantrao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.A. No. 416 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982MP6
ActsMadhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 - Sections 21(3); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151
AppellantNagar Palika, Maheshwar
RespondentBalwantrao
Appellant AdvocateP.N. Waliwadkar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC.S. Chhazed, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - ' this provision clearly provides that if any judicial act is done on a day which is specified in the list under sub-section (2) i. the purpose of this provision clearly appears to be to provide for such contingency when an urgent order has to be passed even on a day when the civil courts are closed. this, therefore, clearly goes to show that this provision has been enacted to clarify the situation and the view taken by the learned district judge is not correct when it says that it is only a curative or remedial provision......mandleshwar. 2. on 16th may, 1981 an application under section 151 was filed that although the civil courts are in vacations but in view of the urgency of the stay application the matter be heard during vacations and an order be passed. the learned district judge rejected the prayer and by the impugned order directed that the papers of the appeal be kept in the office as nothing could be done during the vacation and further directed that it be listed for hearing on the reopening day i.e. 15th june, 1981. it is against this order passed by the learned district judge that this revision petition is filed. 3. the learned district judge took the view that during summer vacations the civil courts cannot entertain any appeal or application in spite of the fact that section 21(3) of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

G.L. Oza, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who preferred an appeal before the District Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar.

2. On 16th May, 1981 an application under Section 151 was filed that although the Civil Courts are in vacations but in view of the urgency of the stay application the matter be heard during vacations and an order be passed. The learned District Judge rejected the prayer and by the impugned order directed that the papers of the appeal be kept in the office as nothing could be done during the vacation and further directed that it be listed for hearing on the reopening day i.e. 15th June, 1981. It is against this order passed by the learned District Judge that this revision petition is filed.

3. The learned District Judge took the view that during summer vacations the Civil Courts cannot entertain any appeal or application in spite of the fact that Section 21(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act provides that an order passed during a holiday or during vacations will not be illegal only because the order was passed during the vacations. The learned District Judge took the view that Section 21 (3) is only a provision which saves any orders passed and, therefore, further observed that there appears to be a defect in the Civil Courts Act and refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and, therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Section 21 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act reads as under :

'21. Vacations: (1) Subject to the approval of the State Government the High Court shall prepare a list of days to be observed in each year as holidays in the Civil Court subordinate thereto.

(2) The list shall be published in the Official Gazette.

(3) A judicial act done by a Court on a day specified in a list under Sub-section (2) shall not be invalid by reason only of its having been done on that day.'

This provision clearly provides that if any judicial act is done on a day which is specified in the list under Sub-section (2) i. e. the list of holidays and vacations will not be invalid merely because it was dons on a day which was included in the list under Subsection (2). The purpose of this provision appears to be clear that if on a day which is included in the list as a holiday or as a vacation if any urgent matter his to be attended to by the Civil Court and, the judicial acts (any order) are passed by a Civil Court on that day it could not be said that these orders were invalid because they were passed on a day on which the Civil Court was closed. The purpose of this provision clearly appears to be to provide for such contingency when an urgent order has to be passed even on a day when the Civil Courts are closed. The learned District Judge felt that the law was defective and needed some amendment. That may be so but on that ground it could not be said that an urgent matter could not be attended to even if it requires to be attended immediately.

5. Learned District Judge felt that Subsection (3) of Section 21 is merely a curative provision and, therefore, it does not confer jurisdiction on a Civil Court to act on a day which is holiday. It appears that the learned Judge misconstrued the provisions of the Civil Courts Act. The Civil Court or a Judge appointed under the Civil Courts Act does not cease to be a Court merely because on a particular day it is declared a holiday and, therefore, it is wrong to say that on a holiday the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings. This provision has been enacted only to repel any contention if advanced that if any judicial act has been done on a holiday it will not be valid and in order to repel such contentions it has been provided in Subsection (3) of Section 21 as under :--

'Section 21. (1) to (2) ...... ...... .....

(3) A judicial act done by a Court on a day specified in a list under Sub-section (2) shall not be invalid by reason only if its having been done on that day.'

As per the scheme of the Civil Courts Act it does not refer to the jurisdiction of the Courts only on working days and there is nothing in the provisions of this Act to indicate that on holidays the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any matter. Section 21, Sub-section (1) only provides for preparation of a list to be observed as holidays in Civil Courts. Sub-section (2) provides for its publication and Sub-section (3) provides that any judicial act done on a day included in the list under Sub-sections (1) and (2) will not be invalid merely because it is done on that day. This, therefore, clearly goes to show that this provision has been enacted to clarify the situation and the view taken by the learned District Judge is not correct when it says that it is only a curative or remedial provision. This view is only possible if there is anything in the Act to indicate that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings on a holiday and, therefore, any judicial act done on a holiday would be invalid except it is not validated by Sub-section (3). But as discussed above the scheme of the Act does not indicate that an act done by a Judge presiding over a Civil Court will be without jurisdiction merely because it has been performed on a holiday and in that view of the matter, therefore, it could not be said that this provision (Sub-section (3) of Section 21) is a curative provision. It apparently is a provision to clarify the position and in this view of the matter, therefore, the learned District Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law.

6. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the learned Court below is set aside and it is directed that the learned Judge shall proceed to hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.


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