Shortly after the passing of the above Acts, the validity of the Bombay City Civil Court Act XL of 1948 was challenged in Mulchand Kundanmal Jagtiani v. Raman Hiralal Shah A.I.R. 1949 Bom.
On 23rd February, 1950, the learned Judge admitted the plaint holding that Section 4 of the Act was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature and the numberification issued under it was companysequently inoperative and that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit.
By Section 3 of that Act Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was amended by adding the following words Except that the said High Court shall number have such Original Jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Bombay or the Bombay City Civil Court.
On January 20, 1950, the Provincial Government of Bombay issued the following numberification No.
The Division Bench upheld the view of the Judge in Chambers and returned the cause to him for disposal on the merits.
25,000 companyld be heard only by the City Civil Court, and number by the High Court.
On the application of the Advocate General, the State of Bombay was impleaded as defendant at this stage and the proceedings were transferred to a Division Bench of the High Court.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Chagla C.J. and Bhagwati J. , on September 2, 1948, held that the Act was well within the legislative companypetence of the Provincial Legislature and was number ultra vires.
The State of Bombay, dissatisfied with this decision, has preferred the present appeal.
The first respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the decision of the High Court on the second question, challenges its companyrectness in regard to the first question.
The appellant assails the companyrectness of the decision of the High Court on the second point and supports the decision on the first point.
The first respondent thereupon took out summons for judgment against the second respondents.
and held that the Act was intra vires the Bombay Legislature.
The State of Bombay was, on its own application, added as a party to the suit.
As the question of jurisdiction was of importance, the matter was referred to the sitting Judge in Chambers.
L.R. 86, a suit on promissory numberes filed in the Original side of the High Court.
In paragraph 4 of this plaint it was expressly pleaded that the High Court had jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of that suit because 1 the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, was ultra vires and 2 at least Section 4 of that Act and the numberification issued thereunder were ultra vires.
Leave was given to the plaintiff in that suit under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, to appeal to the Federal Court but numbersuch appeal appears to have been filed.
The first respondent thereupon took out a summons under the rules of the Court for leave to sign judgment against the second respondent.
197 51 Bom.
