V. Bhargava, J.@mdashBy this petition, the Petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Tehri-Garhwal on the 17th of June, 1954, holding that the signature on the plaint in suit No. 13 of 1953 by the Deputy Commissioner of Almora and its presentation by the District Government Counsel of Almora were valid in law. There is the further prayer for the issue of a writ of prohibition, ordering opposite party No. 2, the learned Civil Judge of Tehri-Garhwal, not to try suit No. 13 of 1953 pending in this Court. It appears that the plaint in this suit was signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Almora and was first presented in the court of the Deputy Commissioner of Almora who was also the Senior Civil Judge of Almora and was then transferred for trial to the Civil Judge, Tehri-Garhwal. The learned Civil Judge held that the Senior Civil Judge of Almora had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, consequently, ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper court. Thereupon the plaint, as originally signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Almora, was presented by the District Government Counsel, Almora, before the District Judge of Kumaun at Naini Tal.
2. It has been contended by Learned Counsel that, under the notification made by the Government under Order XXVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint, when presented in the court of the District Judge of Kumaun at Naini Tal, should have been signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner of Naini Tal and not by the Deputy Commissioner of Almora. His contention, therefore, is that the plaint was signed and verified by a person not authorised to do so on behalf of the Government and there being no valid plaint, courts had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. The notification lays down that
In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 1 of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the CPC the Governor of the United Provinces is pleased to authorise Collectors of Districts to sign and verify plaints and written statements in all suits by and against the Government of the United Provinces in any Civil or revenue court situated within the limits of their respective jurisdictions.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the court of the District Judge of Kumaun is not situated within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Almora and consequently, he had no authority to sign and verify the plaint. On the 26th of November, (sic), when this case came up for hearing before me, I granted time to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to find out what places of sitting were notified for the District Judge of Kumaun u/s 14 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. Today Learned Counsel conceded that the District Judge of Kumaun has various places of sitting, including Naini Tal and Almora, while exercising jurisdiction as District Judge in Civil matters. Since the places of sitting of the District Judge of Kumaun included both Naini Tal and Almora, it must be held that his Court is situated at both the places. The situation of the Court is to be determined by its prescribed places of sitting and not by the fact that, on a particular day, it might be sitting at one place. As an example, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has two places of sitting, viz., Allahabad and Lucknow, and on a particular day, even if the Bench at Allahabad does not sit, it cannot be said that on that day, the High Court is situated at Lucknow and not at Allahabad. Similarly, if the Bench at Lucknow does not sit on any particular day, it cannot be said that the High Court is situated at Allahabad and not at Lucknow. It is not the actual sitting on a particular day that determines the situation of a Court but the situation is determined by the places of sitting prescribed under the law for that purpose. In these circumstances, the Court of the District Judge of Kumaun must be considered to be situated both at Almora and at Naini Tal and, consequently, the plaint could have been signed and verified either by the Deputy Commissioner of Naini Tal, or, by the Deputy Commissioner of Almora. This ground for the issue of a writ of certiorari or prohibition, therefore, fails.
4. Learned Counsel has also urged that the cause of action arose in the district of Naini Tal and not in the district of Almora and, consequently, on that ground, the Deputy Commissioner of Almora was not competent to sign and verify the plaint. This is a point which is intrinsic to the dispute in the suit and requires consideration of facts to determine where the cause of action arose. The matter raised is not a collateral matter and, on such a ground, a writ of certiorari or prohibition cannot be issued. The appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to raise the issue in the court where the suit is pending and, of course, he can ultimately come up to this Court in appeal or revision.
5. There is no reason to entertain this petition which is dismissed.
