M/s. Alliance Business School, Bengaluru and Others Vs. Madhukar G. Angur and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1182936
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnApr-12-2016
Case NumberW.P.No. 19160 of 2016(GM-CPC)
JudgeAravind Kumar
AppellantM/s. Alliance Business School, Bengaluru and Others
RespondentMadhukar G. Angur and Others
Excerpt:
bengaluru city civil court act, 1979 section 5 jurisdiction petitioners sought for direction regarding quashing of notification under notification trial court has transferred suit from one court to another court - court held it cannot be gain said by petitioners that principal district judge erred in exercising power under section 5(2) or decision of principal district judge is to be faulted with direction is to court and not to judge by name and now by subsequent event if principal district judge has transferred suit which was pending before xx additional city civil and sessions judge, to ix additional city civil and sessions judge, for disposal in accordance with law, said order cannot be held either in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction there is no merit in petition petition dismissed. (para12) cases referred: usmangani adambhai vahora vs state of gujarat and another reported in (2016) 3 scc 370.sathyashree vs m.kumreshan reported in 1399(5)klj 540 m/s. deepak agencies*. vs m/s. seethalakshmi hall flour mills reported in ilr 19 7 (2) kar 1349. comparative citation: 2016 (4) kantlj 390, 1. heard sri.d.n. nanjunda reddy and sri. jayakumar s. patil, learned senior advocates appearing for petitioners and sri.r. nagendra naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 arid 2. 2. petitioners are seeking for the following relief: (a) issue an appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the notification under challenge i.e., notification dated 29th march, 2016 bearing no.adm-i, (a)/213/2016 (true photocopy produced at annexure-a). under the impugned notification learned principal district judge, bengaluru has transferred the suit o.s.no. 1094/2016 from xx additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-32) court to ix additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru, (cch-5). 3. writ petitioners are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants in o.s. 1094/2016. plaintiffs have instituted said suit for the relief indicated in the plaint which is at annexure-g. an interlocutory application under order xxxix rule 1 and 2 also came to be filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction and an exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction was also sought for. trial court by order dated 06.02.2016-annexure-h granted an exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs as prayed for as indicated in the order dated 06.02.2016. questioning grant of exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction defendants 1 and 2 filed writ petition before this court in w.p.i 1821-22/2016 (gm-cpc) as per annexure-c. after hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the parties, by order dated 09.03.2016-annexure-e this court disposed of said writ petitions by placing the submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and it reads as under: "3. said submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners is not opposed by learned senior advocates appearing for respondents. in that view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that if a direction is issued to xx addl. city civil and sessions judge, bangalore (cch-32) to dispose of i.a.no.1/16 along with interlocutory application filed under order xxxix rule 4 cpc, annexure-d, expeditious^ at any rate within an outer limit of two (2) weeks from today, it would meet the ends of justice and accordingly direction is issued. it is made clear that no opinion or view is expressed on the merits of the case and all contentions of both parties are left open. 4. in the event of application for advancement / preponement of the case in question is filed before trial court, since the date of hearing is listed as 29.04.2016, trial court shall receive the said application and in compliance of direction issued by this court, shall dispose of the applications as aforestated by preponing /advancing the case. respondents are also at liberty to file objections to application filed under order xxxix rule 4 of cpc". 4. on such direction being issued to xx additional city civil judge, bengaluru (cch-32) interlocutory application filed by plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction is said to have been taken up for consideration and learned advocates are said to have addressed their arguments. hence, trial court had reserved matter for pronouncing orders on 28.03.2016. thereafter it was further adjourned to 02.04.2016 for further hearing, as is evident from the order sheet -annexure-f. in the meanwhile, principal district judge, bengaluru in exercise of his power under section 5 of the bengaluru city civil court act, 1979 has withdrawn said suit o.s. 1094/2016 pending on the file of xx additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch- 32) and transferred to the court of ix additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-5) for disposal in accordance with law vide annexure-a which is now impugned in the present writ petition. 5. learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of petitioners in chorus have contended that exercise of power by the principal district judge is not being questioned, but it is the decision making process which is being questioned. elaborating their submission, they contend that without there being any cogent reason assigned by the principal district judge suit ought not to have been withdrawn from xx additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-32) and transferred it to ix additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-5) and as such they are seeking for quashing of the impugned order. in support of their submission they have relied upon the judgment of apex court in the case of usmangani adambhai vahora vs state of gujarat and another reported in (2016) 3 scc 370. 6. per contra, sri.r.nagendra naik, learned counsel appearing lor respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants submit that defendants had never sought for the transfer of the ease from one court to other court, but on the other hand they had also addressed their arguments before xx additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch- 32) and it is the principal district judge who in exercise of his power under section 5(2) of bengaluru city civil court act, has withdrawn the said suit and transferred the same to ix additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-5) before whom the matter is now pending. he would also submit that pursuant to such transfer of the suit to cch-5 they have already addressed the arguments on application for temporary injunction. hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers it would indicate that after an exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction was granted on 06.02.2016 by trial court, defendants 1 and 2 had approached this court as already noticed herein above in w.p.nos. 11821-22/2016 and had sought for quashing of the said order. however, this court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by either of the parties, by order dated 09.03.2016 -annexure-e had directed the jurisdictional court before whom the suit was pending to expeditiously dispose of the interlocutory application no. 1/2016 along with interlocutory application filed under order xxxix rule 4 of cpc by writ petitioners therein i.e., defendants 1 and 2 as per annexure-d expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of two weeks from the said date i.e., date of order. infact parties were also granted liberty tc move the trial court for preponement/advancement of the case in order to enable the trial court to dispose of the pending applications as had been directed by this court when, the applications were heard and it w?.s listed for further hearing, the principal district judge, bengaluru has issued the impugned notification by transferring the said suit from cch-32 to cch 5 by virtue of power vested in him under section 5(2) of bengaluru city civil court act, 1979. 8. section 5 of the bengaluru city civil court act, 1979 reads as under: 5. powers of judges:- (1) subject to the other provisions of this act, each of the judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the city civil court by this act or any other law for the time being in force. (2) the principal city civil judge may, subject to the general or special orders of the high court, from time to time, make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the city civil court among the judges thereof'. 9. a bare reading of sub-section(l) of section 5 would indicate that each of the judges of civil court is empowered to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the city civil court. sub-section(2) of section 5 would indicate that principal city civil judge may, subject to general or special orders of the high court, from time to time, make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the city civil court among the judges thereof. as rightly and fairly accepted by sri.d.n.nanjunda reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners the principal city civil judge exercising power under section 5 would be the master of roster. to put it differently the principal city civil judge can withdraw any suit pending before any additional city civil judge and transfer the same for being disposed of by any other additional city civil judge. this power of principal city civil judge to effect such transfer of suits forms part of his power to arrange for the distribution of business of city civil court among the judges thereof. a co-ordinate bench of this court while considering the power and ambit of principal district judge vis-a-vis section 5 of the bengaluru city civil court act, 1979 and section 24 of cpc in the case of sathyashree vs m.kumreshan reported in 1399(5)klj 540 has held to the followng effect: "10. whenever the expression "district court" has been used in the code of civil procedure, it means and refers to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. hierarchy of the courts for administration of justice had been created by the constitution of the courts under the karnataka civil courts act, as well as by bangalore city civil court act with respect to the city of bangalore. karnataka state legislature enacted bangalore city civil court act, 1979. section 3 of the bangalore city civil court act, 1979 provides for the establishment of a city civil court for the city of bangalore. the city civil court under sub section (3) of section 2 of the bangalore city civil court act, 1979, means the court established under sub-section(l) of section 3. sub-section (1) of section 3 of the act, provides that there shall be a city civil court for the city of bangalore. sub-section(2) of section 3 provides that the city civil court shall consist oi a principal city civil judge ana such number of other city civil judges as the state government may, in consultation with the high court determine. sub-sec don (3) of sec lion 3 provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the city civil court -(a) shall be deemed to be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in the city of bangalore", it means by this deeming clause the state of affairs as enacted has to be deemed. even for a moment it may be said that the principal city civil court may ordinarily be the city civil court but by legal fiction the city civil court has to be deemed to be the principal city civil court of original jurisdiction for the city of bangalore and there it has been provided that there shall be a principal city civil judge and such number of other city civil judges as state government in consultation with high court may determine. with respect to the bangalore district courts, the courts of the civil judges and the munsiffs court established under the karnataka civil courts act, 1964 (karnataka act 21 of 1964), exercising jurisdiction only withm the local limits of the city of bangalore immediately before the appointed date shall, on and from the said date, cease to function and are hereby abolished. section 4 provides that the city civil court shall be deemed to be a court subordinate to and subject to the control and superintendence of the high court. section 5 provides that each of the judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the city civil court by this act or any other law for the time being in force. section 5(2) is more important and it provides that the principal city civil judge may, subject to the general or special orders of the high court from time to time make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the city civil court among the judges thereof. this power is no doubt subject to the general or special order of the high court. therefore the power of distribution of work among the judges of the city civil court vests in the principal city civil judge. the expression "distribution" includes in its allocation of work to different city civil judges and this power is vested in the principal city civil judge. the city civil court has been deemed to be the court of original jurisdiction, unless any direction to the contrary is shown, it lies within the power of principal city civil judge to allocate work or to distribute work of the various judges of the city civil court and this power may be said to include transferring of a case from the court of one additional city civil judge to the court of another additional city civil judge. section 24(3)(a) of the code of civil procedure, also introduces a deeming clause that courts of additional and assistant judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the district court. if additional district judges can be deemed to be subordinate to the principal district judge for the purpose of distribution of work and transfer of cases under section 24 of the code, in mj' opinion the same will be the position of other judges of the city civil court. the principal city civil judge may make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the transfer and distribution of the work of the city civil court among other judges. in this view of the matter, in my opinion it cannot be said that the principal city civil judge had committed any jurisdictional error or acted in excess of jurisdiction when it passed the impugned order. the principal city civil judge, bangalore, has got full power to transfer the case under section 24 of the code of civil procedure read with section 5(2) of the bangalore city civil court act, 1979. the order impugned in this revision petition does not suffer an}' error or jurisdictional error". 10. a division bench of this court in the case of m/s. deepak agencies*. vs m/s. seethalakshmi hall flour mills reported in ilr 19 7 (2) kar 1349 was examining as to whether the chief judge of the court of small causes, bangalore, who has also been appointed as a judge of the city civil court, had the jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal preferred against the order of the erstwhile second munsiff, bangalore. after considering the provision governing the issue namely section 5 of the bengaluru city civil court act, 1979 it has been held by the division bench to the following effect: 5. in our opinion the contention urged for the appellants is raised by only looking to section 26 of the small causes courts act and over-looking the provisions of section 5(1) of the city civil courts act. that section reads: "5. powers of judges. (1) subject to the other provisions of this act, each of the judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the city civil court by this act or any other law for the time being in force". in view of this pr ovision each of the judge of city civil court is empowered to exercise all or any of the powers cf the city civil court. the power to decide the appeals preferred against the orders of the munsiffs, to the civil judges court, under the old set-up, which stood transferred to the city civil court is undisputedly vested in the city civil court. therefore, if the chief judge of the small cause court had not been appointed as a judge of the city civil court he would have had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. but, in the present case what has actually been done is, as there were number of vacancies in the city civil court with the object of utilising the services of the chief judge of court of small causes in the disposal of cases pending before that court he was appointed as an additional judge of the city civil court as he was an officer belonging to the cadre of district judges. the notification issued by the high court on 26-8-1982 reads: "notification in exercise of the powers confened, the high court of karnataka hereby appoints the chief judge, court of small causes, bangalore city, as additional city civil judge, bangalore city, for one year with effect from 23-8-1982 to dispose of cases pending in the vacant city civil court in addition to his court work". the wording of the notification is very clear. the chief judge of court of small causes was appointed as additional city civil judge, bangalore city, for one year with effect from 23-8- 1982. there is no dispute that the appointment has been extended from time to time. thus, on 18- 6-1983, when appeal was disposed of, the chief judge of court of small causes was also an additional city civil judge, and, therefore, by virtue of section 5(1) of the city civil courts act, he was competent to dispose of the appeal. for these reasons we reject the contention of the appellant and we answer the question set-out first as follows: the chief judge of the court of small causes, bangalore, having been appointed as a judge of the city civil court had the jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal preferred against the order of the second munsiff, bangalore. in fact, the certified copy of the appellate order produced along with this appeal shows that the appeal was disposed of by the additional city civil judge. 11. in the light of the aforestated discussion neither of the parties can be heard to contend that there is no power available to the principal district judge under section 5(2) to withdraw a particular case from one court and allot it or distribute it to another additional city civil court. on doubts, surmises and conjectures decision making process adopted by district judge in the instant case by impugned order cannot be looked into with coloured glasses as sought to be canvassed. as seen from the averments made in the petition, writ petitioners are only expressing that a "doubtful situation" had arisen on account of sequential events that has unfolded or obtained in the facts and circumstances of the case. in the light of such apprehension, it cannot be gain said by petitioners that principal district judge erred in exercising power under section 5(2) or the decision of principal district judge is to be faulted with. however, at this juncture itself it would be apt to state that any threat posed by litigant public to pollute the stream of justice would not be allowed and courts are strong enough to ward off such threats. 12. be that as it may. turning my attention back to the facts on hand it is noticed that this court while disposing of the writ petitions in w.p. 11821-22/2016 on 09.03.2016 as per annexure-e without going into merits of rival contentions had directed the court - xx additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-32) before which court suit was pending to dispose of the pending application i.e., interlocutory application no. 1/2016 along with interlocutory application filed under order xxxix rule 4 cpc by defendants 1 and 2. this court had not directed that very presiding officer is required to dispose of the suit. in other words, the direction was to the court and not to the judge by name and now by subsequent e^ent if the principal district judge has transferred the said suit which was pending before xx additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch 32) to ix additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-5) for disposal in accordance with law, said order cannot be held either in excess of his jurisdiction or same being without jurisdiction. in the light of the above stated discussion this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly it stands rejected. ordered accordingly.
Judgment:

1. Heard Sri.D.N. Nanjunda Reddy and Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.R. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 arid 2.

2. Petitioners are seeking for the following relief:

(a) Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the notification under challenge i.e., Notification dated 29th March, 2016 bearing No.ADM-I, (A)/213/2016 (true photocopy produced at Annexure-A).

Under the impugned Notification learned Principal District Judge, Bengaluru has transferred the suit O.S.No. 1094/2016 from XX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-32) court to IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-5).

3. Writ petitioners are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants in O.S. 1094/2016. Plaintiffs have instituted said suit for the relief indicated in the plaint which is at Annexure-G. An interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 also came to be filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction and an exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction was also sought for. Trial court by order dated 06.02.2016-Annexure-H granted an exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs as prayed for as indicated in the order dated 06.02.2016. Questioning grant of exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction defendants 1 and 2 filed writ petition before this court in W.P.I 1821-22/2016 (GM-CPC) as per Annexure-C. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the parties, by order dated 09.03.2016-Annexure-E this court disposed of said writ petitions by placing the submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties and it reads as under:

"3. Said submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners is not opposed by learned Senior Advocates appearing for respondents. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that if a direction is issued to XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-32) to dispose of I.A.No.1/16 along with interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, Annexure-D, expeditious^ at any rate within an outer limit of two (2) weeks from today, it would meet the ends of justice and accordingly direction is issued. It is made clear that no opinion or view is expressed on the merits of the case and all contentions of both parties are left open.

4. In the event of application for advancement / preponement of the case in question is filed before trial Court, since the date of hearing is listed as 29.04.2016, trial Court shall receive the said application and in compliance of direction issued by this Court, shall dispose of the applications as aforestated by preponing /advancing the case. Respondents are also at liberty to file objections to application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC".

4. On such direction being issued to XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-32) interlocutory application filed by plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction is said to have been taken up for consideration and learned advocates are said to have addressed their arguments. Hence, trial court had reserved matter for pronouncing orders on 28.03.2016. Thereafter it was further adjourned to 02.04.2016 for further hearing, as is evident from the order sheet -Annexure-F. In the meanwhile, Principal District Judge, Bengaluru in exercise of his power under Section 5 of The Bengaluru City Civil Court Act, 1979 has withdrawn said suit O.S. 1094/2016 pending on the file of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 32) and transferred to the court of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) for disposal in accordance with law vide Annexure-A which is now impugned in the present writ petition.

5. Learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of petitioners in chorus have contended that exercise of power by the Principal District Judge is not being questioned, but it is the decision making process which is being questioned. Elaborating their submission, they contend that without there being any cogent reason assigned by the Principal District Judge suit ought not to have been withdrawn from XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-32) and transferred it to IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) and as such they are seeking for quashing of the impugned order. In support of their submission they have relied upon the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Usmangani Adambhai Vahora Vs State of Gujarat and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 370.

6. Per contra, Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, learned counsel appearing lor respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants submit that defendants had never sought for the transfer of the ease from one court to other court, but on the other hand they had also addressed their arguments before XX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 32) and it is the Principal District Judge who in exercise of his power under Section 5(2) of Bengaluru City Civil Court Act, has withdrawn the said suit and transferred the same to IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) before whom the matter is now pending. He would also submit that pursuant to such transfer of the suit to CCH-5 they have already addressed the arguments on application for temporary injunction. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers it would indicate that after an exparte adinterim order of temporary injunction was granted on 06.02.2016 by trial court, defendants 1 and 2 had approached this court as already noticed herein above in W.P.Nos. 11821-22/2016 and had sought for quashing of the said order. However, this court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by either of the parties, by order dated 09.03.2016 -Annexure-E had

directed the jurisdictional court before whom the suit was pending to expeditiously dispose of the Interlocutory application No. 1/2016 along with Interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC by writ petitioners therein i.e., defendants 1 and 2 as per Annexure-D expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of two weeks from the said date i.e., date of order. Infact parties were also granted liberty tc move the trial court for preponement/advancement of the case in order to enable the trial court to dispose of the pending applications as had been directed by this court When, the applications were heard and it w?.s listed for further hearing, the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru has issued the impugned notification by transferring the said suit from CCH-32 to CCH 5 by virtue of power vested in him under Section 5(2) of Bengaluru City Civil Court Act, 1979.

8. Section 5 of the Bengaluru City Civil Court Act, 1979 reads as under:

5. Powers of Judges:-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, each of the Judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the City Civil Court by this Act or any other law for the time being in force.

(2) The Principal City Civil Judge may, subject to the General or Special Orders of the High Court, from time to time, make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the City Civil Court among the Judges thereof'.

9. A bare reading of sub-section(l) of Section 5 would indicate that each of the Judges of Civil Court is empowered to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the City Civil Court. Sub-Section(2) of Section 5 would indicate that Principal City Civil Judge may, subject to General or Special Orders of the High Court, from time to time, make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the City Civil Court among the Judges thereof. As rightly and fairly accepted by Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners the Principal City Civil Judge exercising power under section 5 would be the master of roster. To put it differently the Principal City Civil Judge can withdraw any suit pending before any Additional City Civil Judge and transfer the same for being disposed of by any other Additional City Civil Judge. This power of Principal City Civil Judge to effect such transfer of suits forms part of his power to arrange for the distribution of business of City Civil Court among the Judges thereof. A co-ordinate Bench of this court while considering the power and ambit of Principal District Judge vis-a-vis Section 5 of The Bengaluru City Civil Court Act, 1979 and Section 24 of CPC in the case of Sathyashree Vs M.Kumreshan reported in 1399(5)KLJ 540 has held to the followng effect:

"10. Whenever the expression "District Court" has been used in the Code of Civil Procedure, it means and refers to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Hierarchy of the Courts for administration of justice had been created by the Constitution of the Courts under the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, as well as by Bangalore City Civil Court Act with respect to the City of Bangalore. Karnataka State Legislature enacted Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979. Section 3 of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979 provides for the establishment of a City Civil Court for the City of Bangalore. The City Civil Court under sub section (3) of Section 2 of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979, means the Court established under sub-section(l) of Section 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, provides that there shall be a City Civil Court for the City of Bangalore. Sub-section(2) of Section 3 provides that the City Civil Court shall consist oi a Principal City Civil Judge ana such number of other City Civil Judges as the State Government may, in consultation with the High Court determine. Sub-sec don (3) of Sec Lion 3 provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the City Civil Court -(a) shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the City of Bangalore", it means by this deeming clause the state of affairs as enacted has to be deemed. Even for a moment it may be said that the Principal City Civil Court may ordinarily be the City Civil Court but by legal fiction the City Civil Court has to be deemed to be the Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the City of Bangalore and there it has been provided that there shall be a Principal City Civil Judge and such number of other City Civil Judges as State Government in consultation with High Court may determine. With respect to the Bangalore District Courts, the Courts of the Civil Judges and the Munsiffs Court established under the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964), exercising jurisdiction only withm the local limits of the City of Bangalore immediately before the appointed date shall, on and from the said date, cease to function and are hereby abolished. Section 4 provides that the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to and subject to the control and superintendence of the High Court. Section 5 provides that each of the Judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the City Civil Court by this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 5(2) is more important and it provides that the Principal City Civil Judge may, subject to the general or special orders of the High Court from time to time make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the City Civil Court among the Judges thereof. This power is no doubt subject to the general or special order of the High Court. Therefore the power of distribution of work among the Judges of the City Civil Court vests in the Principal City Civil Judge. The expression "distribution" includes in its allocation of work to different City Civil Judges and this power is vested in the Principal City Civil Judge. The City Civil Court has been deemed to be the Court of original jurisdiction, unless any direction to the contrary is shown, it lies within the power of Principal City Civil Judge to allocate work or to distribute work of the various Judges of the City Civil Court and this power may be said to include transferring of a case from the Court of one Additional City Civil Judge to the Court of another Additional City Civil Judge. Section 24(3)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, also introduces a deeming clause that Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court. If Additional District Judges can be deemed to be subordinate to the Principal District Judge for the purpose of distribution of work and transfer of cases under Section 24 of the Code, in mj' opinion the same will be the position of other Judges of the City Civil Court. The Principal City Civil Judge may make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the transfer and distribution of the work of the City Civil Court among other Judges. In this view of the matter, in my opinion it cannot be said that the Principal City Civil Judge had committed any jurisdictional error or acted in excess of jurisdiction when it passed the impugned order. The Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, has got full power to transfer the case under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 5(2) of The Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979. The order impugned in this revision petition does not suffer an}' error or jurisdictional error".

10. A Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s. Deepak Agencies*. Vs M/s. Seethalakshmi Hall Flour Mills reported in ILR 19 7 (2) Kar 1349 was examining as to whether the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, who has also been appointed as a Judge of the City Civil Court, had the jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal preferred against the order of the erstwhile Second Munsiff, Bangalore. After considering the provision governing the issue namely Section 5 of the Bengaluru City Civil Court Act, 1979 it has been held by the Division Bench to the following effect:

5. In our opinion the contention urged for the appellants is raised by only looking to Section 26 of the Small Causes Courts Act and over-looking the provisions of Section 5(1) of the City Civil Courts Act. That Section reads:

"5. POWERS OF JUDGES. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, each of the Judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the City Civil Court by this Act or any other law for the time being in force".

In view of this pr ovision each of the Judge of City Civil Court is empowered to exercise all or any of the powers cf the City Civil Court. The power to decide the appeals preferred against the orders of the Munsiffs, to the Civil Judges Court, under the old set-up, which stood transferred to the City Civil Court is undisputedly vested in the City Civil Court. Therefore, if the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court had not been appointed as a Judge of the City Civil Court he would have had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. But, in the present case what has actually been done is, as there were number of vacancies in the City Civil Court with the object of utilising the services of the Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes in the disposal of cases pending before that Court he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the City Civil Court as he was an officer belonging to the cadre of District Judges. The Notification issued by the High Court on 26-8-1982 reads:

"NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers confened, the High Court of Karnataka hereby appoints the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, as Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for one year with effect from 23-8-1982 to dispose of cases pending in the vacant City Civil Court in addition to his Court work".

The wording of the Notification is very clear. The Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes was appointed as Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for one year with effect from 23-8- 1982. There is no dispute that the appointment has been extended from time to time. Thus, on 18- 6-1983, when appeal was disposed of, the Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes was also an Additional City Civil Judge, and, therefore, by virtue of Section 5(1) of the City Civil Courts Act, he was competent to dispose of the appeal. For these reasons we reject the contention of the appellant and we answer the question set-out first as follows:

The Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, having been appointed as a Judge of the City Civil Court had the jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal preferred against the order of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore.

In fact, the certified copy of the appellate order produced along with this appeal shows that the appeal was disposed of by the Additional City Civil Judge.

11. In the light of the aforestated discussion neither of the parties can be heard to contend that there is no power available to the Principal District Judge under section 5(2) to withdraw a particular case from one court and allot it or distribute it to another Additional City Civil Court. On doubts, surmises and conjectures decision making process adopted by District Judge in the instant case by impugned order cannot be looked into with coloured glasses as sought to be canvassed. As seen from the averments made in the petition, writ petitioners are only expressing that a "doubtful situation" had arisen on account of sequential events that has unfolded or obtained in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of such apprehension, it cannot be gain said by petitioners that Principal District Judge erred in exercising power under Section 5(2) or the decision of Principal District Judge is to be faulted with. However, at this juncture itself it would be apt to state that any threat posed by litigant public to pollute the stream of justice would not be allowed and courts are strong enough to ward off such threats.

12. Be that as it may. Turning my attention back to the facts on hand it is noticed that this court while disposing of the writ petitions in W.P. 11821-22/2016 on 09.03.2016 as per Annexure-E without going into merits of rival contentions had directed the court - XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-32) before which court suit was pending to dispose of the pending application i.e., Interlocutory application No. 1/2016 along with Interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC by defendants 1 and 2. This court had not directed that very Presiding Officer is required to dispose of the suit. In other words, the direction was to the court and not to the Judge by name and now by subsequent e^ent if the Principal District Judge has transferred the said suit which was pending before XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 32) to IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) for disposal in accordance with law, said order cannot be held either in excess of his jurisdiction or same being without jurisdiction.

In the light of the above stated discussion this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly it stands rejected.

Ordered accordingly.