Skip to content


Sahabati Gopini Vs. Mangturan Agarwalla - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Cal524
AppellantSahabati Gopini
RespondentMangturan Agarwalla
Excerpt:
- .....been preferred.2. it is quite clear that the subordinate judge had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. no doubt it was an irregular thing on the part of the plaintiff to institute the suit in the subordinate judge's court when it should have been instituted in the munsif's court at siliguri; but there was no want of jurisdiction so far as the subordinate judge was concerned to hear the case, and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, namely, that evidence had been gone into and concluded on both sides and arguments were being heard when this question was started, we think that the subordinate judge would have exercised a wiser discretion if instead of directing that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court he had proceeded to bring the hearing to.....
Judgment:

1. In this case what has happened is this: A suit which ordinarily would have been instituted in the Munsif' s Court was instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Darjeeling. Both parties put in their pleadings; issues were settled and evidence was gone into on both sides. Thereafter the defendant proceeded to argue the case. While the argument was going on an objection was taken that the suit should have been instituted in the Munsif's Court. The argument on behalf of the defendant was interrupted and the matter was gone into and the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the only thing that could be done in the circumstances which had happened was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, namely, the Court of the Munsif at Siliguri. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.

2. It is quite clear that the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. No doubt it was an irregular thing on the part of the plaintiff to institute the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court when it should have been instituted in the Munsif's Court at Siliguri; but there was no want of jurisdiction so far as the Subordinate Judge was concerned to hear the case, and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, namely, that evidence had been gone into and concluded on both sides and arguments were being heard when this question was started, we think that the Subordinate Judge would have exercised a wiser discretion if instead of directing that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court he had proceeded to bring the hearing to a conclusion and thereafter to deliver judgment. It is said that the Subordinate Judge's order is not an illegal order. That may or may not be so; but, in the circumstances which obtain in the present case and having regard to what has already been alluded to above, we think that the Subordinate Judge would have been well advised if he had adopted the course indicated above. We therefore set aside the order complained of and remit the case to the learned Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling for bringing It to a termination in the ordinary way and delivering judgment. The costs of this appeal will abide the result. The hearing fee is assessed at three gold mohurs.


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