A. Bhuvaneshwari vs Sri Ramaprabnnachary and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan

Petitioner had filed the un-numbered Transfer O.P. on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking for a direction to transfer O.S.

No. 1794 of 2008 filed by her and the subsequent suit O.S. No. 370 of 2009 filed by the first respondent for the same subject matter relating to

the same property, pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur, to any other District Munsif Court so as to dispose of the suits

jointly. The said un-numbered Transfer O.P. was dealt with by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, at S.R. stage on the point of

maintainability and rejected by an order dated 25.07.2012. The reason given by the Court below for rejecting the petition was that the said Court

did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The said order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the District Munsif Court at Sriperumbudur comes under the administrative control of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, and,

hence, the said Court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He would also rely upon Section 24(3)(a) of the CPC to say that the Courts

of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court.

In order to have a clear picture over the matter, this Court appointed Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel, as amicus curiae, to

assist the Court. Accordingly, he assisted the Court and submitted that Section 3A of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, provides for

appointment of Additional District Judge, as per which, the Additional District Judge so appointed shall discharge all or any of the functions of the

District Judge under the Act and he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge.

To examine the above contentions of the learned counsel and also the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned, it is apt to refer to

Section 24(3)(a) of C.P.C. and Sections 3A and 10 of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, which read as under :

Section 24(3)(a) of C.P.C.:

General power of transfer and withdrawal.-

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(3) For the purposes of this section.-

(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court.

Sections 3A and 10 of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 :

3-A. Appointment of Additional District Judge.- When, in the opinion of the High Court, the state of business pending before the Judge of any

District Court (hereinafter called the ""District Judge"" so requires, the State Government may appoint one or more Additional District Judges to that

Court for such period as they may deem necessary.

The Additional District Judges so appointed shall discharge all or any of the functions of the District Judge under this Act or any other law for the

time being in force which the District Judge may assign to them, and, in the discharge of those functions, they shall exercise the same powers as the

District Judge.

Section 10. Local limits of jurisdiction of District Court or Subordinate Judges.- The State Government shall fix and may, from time to time, vary

the local limits of the jurisdiction of any District Court or Subordinate Judge''s Court under this Act.

The present local limits of the jurisdiction of every Civil Court (other than the High Court) shall be deemed to have been fixed under this Act.

Though as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the general power of transfer and withdrawal, the Courts of

Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court as per Section 24(3)(a) of C.P.C., it is a sine qua non to

keep in mind the provisions of Sections 3A and 10 of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873. As per Section 3A, when, in the opinion of the High

Court, the state of business pending before the Judge of any District Court so requires, the State Government may appoint one or more Additional

District Judges to that Court for such period as they may deem necessary. The Section is also clear that the Additional District Judges so

appointed shall discharge all or any of the functions of the District Judge under this Act or any other law for the time being in force which the

District Judge may assign to them, and, in the discharge of those functions, they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. Further,

Section 10 of the Act provides for local limits of jurisdiction of District Court or Subordinate Judges. As per the said Section, the State

Government shall fix and may, from time to time, vary the local limits of the jurisdiction of any District Court or Subordinate Judge''s Court under

this Act.

On the basis of the recommendations of the High Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed orders in G.O.Ms. No. 1037, Home (Courts

III) Department, dated 04.12.2009, directing that a District Court No. II be constituted at Kancheepuram as a special case to exercise jurisdiction

over the taluks of Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur, Sriperumpudur and Cheyyar. However, the jurisdiction of ''Cheyyar'' was deleted by G.O.Ms.

No. 1055, dated 11.12.2009. Pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 1037, dated 04.12.2009, G.O.Ms. No. 1087, Home (Courts III), Department, dated

18.12.2009 was issued, containing several notifications. Some of the notifications, which are relevant, are as under :

NOTIFICATION-I

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, (Central Act III of 1873), the Governor of Tamil

Nadu hereby establishes a District Court at Kancheepuram in Kancheepuram district to be styled as ""The District Court No. II at Kancheepuram"".

NOTIFICATION III

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 (Central Act III of 1873), the Governor of Tamil

Nadu hereby fixes Kancheepuram as the place at which the District Court No. II, Kancheepuram, shall be held with effect on and from the date

on which the District Judge, District Court No. II at Kancheepuram assumes charge of that Court.

NOTIFICATION-IV

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1973 (Central Act III of 1873) and in supersession of all

previous Notifications on the subject, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, hereby fixes the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Court,

Chengalpattu and the District Court No. II, Kancheepuram as specified in the Table below with effect on and from the date on which the District

Judge, District Court No. II, Kancheepuram assumes charge of that Court:-

NOTIFICATION-V

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the

Governor of Tamil Nadu, after consultation with the High Court, Madras, hereby alters the limits of the Chengalpattu and Kancheepuram Sessions

Divisions comprising the Revenue Taluks, specified below, with effect from the date on which the District Judge, District Court No. II,

Kancheepuram assumes charge of that Court:-

NOTIFICATION-VI

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the

Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby establishes a court of Sessions for Kancheepuram Sessions Division with effect on and from the date on which the

District Judge, District Court No. II, Kancheepuram, assumes charge of that Court.

The above G.Os., viz., G.O.Ms. No. 1037, dated 04.12.2009, G.O.Ms. No. 1055, dated 11.12.2009 and G.O.Ms. No. 1087, Home

(Courts III) Department, dated 18.12.2009, are passed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3A and 10 of

Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, which are specific as to the appointment of Additional District Judges, their functions and limits, constituting

District Court No. II at Kancheepuram and fixing the local limits of jurisdiction of the said Court, especially Sriperumpudur under its control, which

jurisdiction is in question in the present case.

Following the said G.Os., the Hon''ble Administrative Committee of the High Court passed a resolution based on which the High Court issued

instructions in the form of an Official Memo, dated 11.04.2011, in ROC. No. 2380/A/2009/G1, dated 11.04.2011, clearly indicating that District

Court No. II, Kancheepuram, had started functioning with effect from 04.10.2010. It was also indicated therein that District Court No. II,

Kancheepuram, was exercising jurisdiction over the Taluks of Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur and Sriperumpudur, as per G.O.Ms. No. 1087, Home

(Courts III) Department, dated 18.12.2009. The Official Memo was very specific that filing, numbering and listing of all Civil Cases and Criminal

Cases falling under the jurisdiction of District Court No. II at Kancheepuram (i.e., taluks of Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur and Sriperumpudur)

should be made before the District Court No. II, Kancheepuram and, consequently, the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, did not have

concurrent jurisdiction over the aforesaid Taluks with regard to filing, numbering and listing of cases, as was apparent on the face of the

Government Order, dated 18.12.2009. In the given situation, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that only the District Court at

Chengalpattu has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. More importantly, the District

Court-II constituted at Kancheepuram is not an Additional Court, but is also a District Court, though ranked as No. II, having equal powers as

that of a District Court.

Administration of justice, as far as subordinate judiciary is concerned, is vested with the High Court. It considers every requirement while

looking into the aspirations and wishes of the people in the area where a Court functioning is required. In such a need, the High Court, after taking

into all the factors and the recommendations for establishment of a particular Court in a particular manner, can propose to the appropriate

Government and, thereafter, the Government, after considering the proposal of the High Court and every factor including the financial position,

shall come out with a notification to establish such a Court in the area where it is required. The power of Judiciary and the power of Executive in

administration of Justice Delivery System are underlined by law in general and the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act in particular.

Based on the above principles, in this case, the High Court has proposed to the Government for demarcation of certain areas, namely,

Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur and Sriperumpudur Taluks and identified the jurisdiction of those areas by constituting a District Court called District

Court No. II, Kancheepuram. The Government has accepted the said proposal for constitution of the District Court and notified the same in

G.O.Ms. No. 1037, dated 04.12.2009. Thereafter, as per the administrative procedure, the High Court has issued proceedings and

communicated the same to the officer concerned, who is holding the position as Additional District Judge in the area in question.

It is true, for the district of Kancheepuram, there was already a District Court at Chengalpattu. However, as there was a demand for

constitution of a separate District Court at Kancheepuram, the proposal made by the High Court to that effect was accepted by the Government

and followed by procedural establishment of the said new Court as District Court No. II, Kancheepuram, in addition to the already existing District

Court at Chengalpattu, whereby clearly indicating that filing, numbering and listing of all Civil Cases and Criminal Cases falling under the jurisdiction

of District Court No. II at Kancheepuram i.e., taluks of Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur and Sriperumpudur should be made before the District Court

No. II, Kancheepuram. While doing so, the powers vested with the High Court and other authorities are exercised in the manner as provided

under the Act and the Rules. Be that as it may, interpreting the provision u/s 24 of C.P.C. as if the Additional District Judge holding the position of

District Court No. II cannot be construed as that of the District Judge and he has no administrative powers, in my considered opinion, is absolutely

ridiculous.

Entry 11-A of List III (Concurrent List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India empowered the State Legislatures to constitute and

organise all Courts except the Supreme Court and the High Courts. While constituting such Courts, the State Legislatures are also empowered to

confer jurisdiction and powers upon such Courts inasmuch as ""administration of justice"" of all Courts including High Courts is covered by Entry

11-A of List III, so long as Parliament does not enact law in that regard under Entry 11-A. In this regard, the State of Tamil Nadu has exercised

the powers, conferring certain powers upon Civil Courts, which powers have to be exercised in the manner as provided under the law, pursuant to

the recommendations of the High Court, which was followed by a Notification thereto. In the given situation, the jurisdiction vested with such

Courts cannot be called in question, unless it is non est.

An analysis of the entire case in hand would make it crystal clear that the jurisdiction and powers with regard to filing, numbering and listing of

all civil and criminal cases in respect of taluks of Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur and Sriperumpudur are conferred only on District Court No. II,

Kancheepuram, and not District Court, Chengalpattu. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate Court having jurisdiction for the

relief he sought. Under the circumstances, the attempt made by the petitioner in interpreting the provision u/s 24 C.P.C. as if the Additional District

Judge has no power to deal with the petition in question, when such power has conspicuously been conferred on District Court No. II,

Kancheepuram as underlined in Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act to exercise the powers and functions of the District Court, and assailing the order of

the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, returning the petition, is inane.

That being the clear position, the order of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, rejecting the petition of the revision petitioner, on the

ground that the said Court has no jurisdiction to transfer the cases pending before DM-cum-JM, Sriperumpudur, u/s 24 C.P.C. and that the

District Court No. II, Kancheepuram, which is exercising jurisdiction over the taluks of Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur and Sriperumpudur, alone has

got jurisdiction to entertain the said Transfer Petition, in my standpoint, is absolutely in order and no interference is called for with the same by this

Court. In the light of the above legal principles, the Court below has rightly returned the petition of the revision petitioner and in the absence of any

manifest error, it is not for this Court to interfere with such a decision invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Civil

Revision Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merit. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is also dismissed. While parting

with, this Court records its appreciation for the able assistance bestowed by Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel, as amicus curiae,

in disposing of this petition.