Judgment:
A.J. Sadashiva, J.
1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same is heard on merits and disposed of by this Judgment with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides.
2. This appeal is by the defendants in O.S. No. 1702/89 on the file of the learned XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a Judgment and Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing any order under Section 29 or 30 of the State financial Corporation Act, without issuing Notice by the Board of Directors and without the Board of Directors hearing the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence passed the Decree as follows:
'The plaintiff shall be heard by the competent person in accordance with the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act before an order under Section 29 of the Act is passed against the plaintiff. The defendants is directed to bring to the notice of the plaintiff about the delegation of the powers to the Branch Office under Acknowledgement before giving him an opportunity while exercising powers under Section 29 of the Act, if any.'
3. On the basis of the pleading an issue as regards the maintainability of the suit was also raised and the same was answered in the affirmative. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction on the Courts to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The explanation to the said section also describes what is a suit of civil nature.
4. In the instant case, there is no dispute either in respect of a right to property or in respect of a right to an office. The question in controversy is as to the powers of the Finance Corporation under Section 29 or 30 of the State Finance Corporation Act and the mode of exercise, which in my considered view cannot be the subject matter of a suit. The learned Trial Judge has failed to notice this aspect and thus fallen into an error in taking cognizance. A suit for a direction to any Authority to act in accordance with law is not maintainable. As all public Authorities are presumed to perform their function, exercise their power and discharge their duties only in accordance with law and not otherwise and as it is also open to the parties to take such action as is allowed in law, if there is any violation of statutory provision by any public authority.
5. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and Decree dated 7.4.1995 passed by the XXth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 1702/89 is set aside and the suit is dismissed as not maintainable. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.