Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the respondents' notice of motion and restoring Suit No. 3969 of 1996, which had been dismissed for default on 2nd July 2003. The suit was originally filed in 1996 by Smt. Rasikmani Narottam Sheth seeking damages and injunctive relief. After her death on 11th September 2012, her legal representatives (the respondents) sought restoration. The appellants, who were the original defendants, challenged the order primarily on the ground that the learned Single Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the notice of motion because, by virtue of Section 4A of the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012 and a Notification dated 5th September 2012, all suits of a certain value pending in the High Court stood transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court. The respondents contended that the suit was dismissed in 2003, before the amendment, and that the High Court retained jurisdiction to restore it. The court analyzed the language of Section 4A and the notification, noting that the transfer applied only to suits pending on the date of the notification. Since the suit had already been dismissed in 2003, it was not pending and thus not transferred. The court further held that the High Court's inherent power to restore a suit dismissed for default is not affected by the amendment. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of restoration was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Restoration of Suit - Section 4A Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012 - The High Court held that the notification transferring suits to the City Civil Court does not divest the High Court of its jurisdiction to restore a suit that was dismissed for default prior to the notification. The suit was filed in 1996 and dismissed in 2003, long before the amendment. The notice of motion for restoration was filed in 2013, but the cause of action arose from the dismissal order of 2003. The High Court retains jurisdiction to deal with matters arising from proceedings that were validly before it at the time of dismissal. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the notice of motion for restoration of a suit dismissed for default, in view of Section 4A of the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012 and the Notification dated 5th September 2012 transferring certain suits to the Bombay City Civil Court.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge restoring the suit is upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction
- Restoration of suit
- Transfer of suits
- Section 4A Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act 2012
- Notification dated 5th September 2012
- Dismissal for default
- Inherent power of court
