CIVIL COURTS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE (II OF
1983)
Sections—2
and 3
Pending suit—Question of
their transfer for disposal—Whether amendments raising their valuation small
affect disposal by the Courts other than where they are pending— Had the
amendment been to the effect that all the pending suits of the Subordinate
Judge’s Courts shall stand transferred automatically to the Courts of the
Assistant Judges after promulgation of the Ordinance the position would have
been different—Here, it is the discretion of the District Judge to transfer
pending proceedings—It is true, at the time of institution of the suits, the
transferee Asstt. Judges were
not
competent to try them, but now by virtue of the amendment they have become
competent to try them—What is needed is that the transferee Court must be
competent at the time when the transfer is ordered—The amendment in question is
not all mandatory and in that view the impugned transfers have not occasioned
any failure of justice—Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) S. 24.
Md. Ebadal
Ali Vs. Ismail Hossain Akhand and others; 9 BLD (HCD) 304.
Ref:
16 DLR (FC) 54; 11 DLR (SC) 200; A,I.R. 1962 (All) 503.
Section—4
Small Cause
Court
Jurisdiction
of—Whether Small Cause Suits can be tried by the presiding officer of a Court
without being specifically empowered by notification to exercise Small Cause
Court jurisdiction. The Government has been empowered to invest Sub-ordinate Judges
and Münsif with Small Cause Court jurisdiction but that has to be done
expressly by notification mentioning the individual by names—The jurisdiction
cannot be invested by taking the pecuniary jurisdiction as the criterion—It has
to be conferred specifically by notification— Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887)s.
25.
Khalilur
Rahinan Vs. Md. Saidur Rahman, 6 BLD (AD) 303.