Whether suit for dissolution of muslim marriage is maintainable before Civil judge Junior division?

The lower Court was therefore right in holding that Section 5 of the Shariat Act, which vested jurisdiction in the District Courts with regard to the dissolution of Muslim marriages, has not been revived. It follows, that the lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary cannot be sustained.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Civil Revn. Petn. No. 474 of 1961

Decided On: 26.10.1962

Syed Shamsuddin Vs.  Munira Begum

Hon'ble Judges:

P. Satyanarayana Raju, J.

Citation : AIR 1963 AP 459

Print Page

Whether High court can impose minor penalty of censure on Judge of subordinate Judiciary?

The Disciplinary Committee considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner and decided to award the minor penalty of censure. We do not find any reason to hold that the minor penalty of censure was not warranted. In our considered opinion, the decision of the disciplinary committee is fully justified in the facts of this case. We have also noted that the Inquiry Officer considered the allegations made in the complaint and has recorded her findings on most of the allegations.

7. Now coming to the powers of the Disciplinary Committee, Article 235 of the Constitution sets out that the control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto shall be vested in the High Court. In the case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0073/1974 : (1974) 2 SCC 831. a Bench of seven Judges, considering the scope of Article 235 of the Constitution, held that the High Court is invested with, under the said Article control of subordinate judiciary. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil and Anr. MANU/SC/0692/1997 : (1997) 6 SCC 339 the Supreme Court held that after the appointment of a judicial officer by the Governor, the power to transfer, maintain discipline and keep control over them vests in the High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court is first among the Judges of the High Court and the action taken is by the High Court and not by the Chief Justice in his individual capacity, nor by the Committee of Judges. For the convenient transaction of administrative business in the Court, the Full Court of the Judges of the High Court generally passes a resolution authorizing the Chief Justice to constitute various committees including the committee to deal with disciplinary matters pertaining to the subordinate judiciary.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5203 of 2010

Decided On: 23.09.2010

Shiwanand Bhagwanrao Kulkarni Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.H. Marlapalle and A.A. Sayed, JJ.

Citation: 2010(6) MHLJ 827

Print Page

Guidelines of Bombay High court about proper scrutiny of suit by civil judge

 I
deem it appropriate to direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court to place a copy of this order before each learned
Principal District Judge in this State so as to bring to the notice
of each Judicial Officer under the respective Judicial district that
a proper scrutiny of the suit shall be performed by the concerned
office of the Courts and in the event of a sketch map being
required to be annexed to the plaints, depending upon the cause
of action in due deference to Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC, the
trial Court shall place such suits in objection category and shall
not proceed with the said suits, until there is a proper

compliance of Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC to avoid further
complications as are visible in the judgments cited in this
proceeding.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2018

DATTATRAYA KASHINATH MANDEKAR Vs CHANGDEO DAGDU KHULE AND OTHERS

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: February 15 2018
Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 584

Print Page

When appeal will lay before district Judge from order passed by civil judge senior division in probate proceeding?

255. (i) Under Section 265 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the High Court has appointed all Civil Judges to act for the District Judge as delegates to grant probate and letters of administration in non-continuous cases arising within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction.

(ii) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28-A(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act (XIV of 1869), the High Court has invested all Civil Judges (Senior Division), with all the powers of a District Judge to take cognizance of any contested proceeding Indian Succession Act 1925, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction that may be transferred to them by their respective District Judges."

6. A bare at the aforesaid paragraphs would make it clear that in case of the contested proceedings, arising under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the said matters may be adjudicated by the District Judge or the Civil Judge, Senior Division to whom the such proceedings have been transferred. Once the Civil Judge, Senior Division has exercised the jurisdiction over the application field by the petitioner for grant of probate of the will having valuation of Rs. 10,000/-, in view of the provisions contained in Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, the appeal lay against such order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division to the Court of the District Judge. Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 reads as under:--

"28-A (1) The High Court may by general or special order invest any Civil Judge within such local limits and subject to such pecuniary limitation as may be prescribed in such order with all or any of the powers of a District Judge or a District Court as the case may be under the Indian Succession Act, 1865, the Probate and Administration Act, 1881 or paragraph 5 of Schedule III to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2) Every order made by a Civil Judge by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under sub-section (1) shall be subject to appeal to the High Court or the District Court according to the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds or does not exceed fifty thousand rupees.

(3) Every order of the District Judge passed on appeal under sub-section (2) from the order of a Civil Judge shall be subject to an appeal to the High Court under the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeal form the appellate decrees."

7. No doubt is left on careful perusal of the said section that the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division on application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act having a valuation of Rs. 10,000/- i.e. less than Rs. 50,000/-, the appeal against the said order lay before the District Court and the appeal filed by the respondents before the Additional District Judge was maintainable and it cannot be said that no appeal lay before him.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Rev. Application No. 925 of 1989

Decided On: 08.03.1995

Manohar son of Bapurao Sapre Vs. Bhaurao son of Tukaramji Shirbhate and another

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Lodha, J.

Citation:1995 (2) Mh.L.J. 336, 

Print Page

Whether District Judge can grant stay to show cause notice issued by civil judge under O 39 R 11 of CPC?

 Mr. S.R. Rivankar submitted that in the present case the
conclusion is already reached by the learned Civil Judge and
issuance of show cause notice is mere formality. Though there
may be some substance in the contention of Mr. Rivankar that
the learned Civil Judge has come to a final conclusion but,
there is no final order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 11.
6. The learned District Judge has erred in entertaining the
appeal and granting stay to the proceedings before the Civil
Judge. It is also not clear from the impugned order whether
the learned District Judge has held appeal to be maintainable
or has postponed the decision till the disposal of the appeal.
Either course of action are not correct in law. First the appeal
was not maintainable. Secondly, the learned District Judge
ought to have considered the nature of the proceedings and
what was at stake was allegation of disobedience of the order
of the Court. By grant of stay in an appeal, which is not
maintainable, the proceedings taken out in respect of breach of
judicial order have been scuttled. The appropriate course of
action would be to permit the learned Civil Judge to pass the
final order in the matter and then entertain the appeal from
such final order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 544 OF 2014
 Shri Gajanan Bala Gawas,

 Versus
Me. Sagun Narayan Morjkar,

Coram:- N. M. JAMDAR, J.
Date:- 18 February 2015
Citation;2016(2) MHLJ 862

Print Page

Bombay high court; No quotas for persons with disabilities for posts of civil judges and JMFC in Maharashtra

MUMBAI: Reservations are not applicable for judicial posts in Maharashtra, the Bombay high court has ruled. In an important order, a division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Rajesh Ketkar rejected a plea that sought implementation of three per cent reservation for persons with disabilities to the posts of civil judges and judicial first class magistrates. 

"The reservation in judiciary service by the state without consulting the high court or without concurrent recommendation of the HC is an encroachment on such exclusive powers," said the judges, while pointing to Supreme Court judgments that had said an "independent judiciary is a basic structure of the constitution and the high court alone can recognise vacancies and the reservation (to judicial posts) even if provided by the state." 

Print Page

Civil Judge invested with jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes under S 28(1) of Bombay Civil Courts Act can function as a Court of Small Causes to extent of pecuniary limits

A Civil Judge invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under Section 28(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act can function as a Court of Small Causes to the extent of pecuniary limits prescribed under Section 28(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act and it shall not have jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suits covered by Section 26(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits.

Bombay High Court

Radheshyam  Zumbarlal Chandak vs The District Judge, Amravati on 5 October, 2010

Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, Ravi K. Deshpande

Citation: 2010(6)BomCR5, 2010(112)BOMLR4412, 2011(1)MhLj399

Print Page