JUDGMENT
James, J.
1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Munsif, of the Third Court at Arrah, dated the 25th of April, 1929.
2. It appears that the Maharaja of Dumraon instituted a rent suit in the Third Court of the Munasif at Arrah on the 10th of September, 1928. On the 5th of April following the defendant took an objection that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Munsif, because by the arrangements for the distribution of business which have been made by the District Judge acting under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887), suits affecting land in Barhara Thana are to be instituted in the Court of the Second Munsif at Arrah. The learned Munsif held that the general order of the District Judge, distributing civil business among the Munsifs by Thanas, did not have the effect of limiting the territorial jurisdiction conferred upon those officers by the Local Government so that he had jurisdiction to try the suit, even though the cause of action might have arisen in Barhara Thana.
3. Mr. Nirsu Narayan Sinha asks for revision of this order. He argues that the rule laid down by Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act, that if the same local jurisdiction is assigned to two or more Munsifs, the District Judge may assign to each of them such civil business cognizable by the Munsif as he thinks fit, is a rule which has the effect of limiting the jurisdiction of the Munsif to entertain plaints; that is to say, the Local Government’s notification fixes the local limits of the jurisdiction which it is within the power of the District Judge to assign, but the jurisdiction of a Munsif is actually limited to the area assigned to him by the District Judge. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 provides that when civil business arising in any local area has been assigned to a particular Munsif a decree or order passed by the Munsif shall not be invalid by reason only of the case having arisen wholly or in part in a place beyond the local area assigned by the District Judge. Mr. Nirsu Narayan Sinha argues that this sub-section applies only where a case has been completely heard by a Subordinate Judge or a Munsif and that it does not apply to give jurisdiction if the jurisdiction is questioned before the hearing is completed.
4. The order of the District Judge assigning to the Munsif at the Sadr Station in Arrah certain local jurisdiction under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act has not the effect of limiting the jurisdiction which is conferred by the notification which is issued by the Local Government when the Munsif is posted to the district. Ordinarily jurisdiction over the whole district is conferred upon a Munsif when he is posted to the Sadr Station; and the jurisdiction is never limited to an area less than that of the Munsif to which he is posted. There may be for administrative convenience an arrangement by which each Munsif takes business arising only in a particular local area, but for the trial of suits of a value of less than a thousand rupees every Munsif stationed at Arrah has concurrent jurisdiction over the whole of the Sadr Sub Division. In this connection I may refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Munshi Rajbans Sahay v. Askaran Baid First Appeal No. 41 of 1926. There in discussing the jurisdiction of Subordinate Judges in the Gaya District it is pointed out that though there may be two or sometimes three Subordinate Judges stationed at Gaya one Subordinate Judge is still competent to perform the work of the other.
Where the ordinary civil business of a district is such that it is necessary to appoint more than one officer to do the work of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, the Courts are locally known as the Courts of the first or second or third Subordinate Judge. But this local description means no more than that the first Subordinate Judge sits in Court No. 1, the second Subordinate Judge in Court No. 2. Each Subordinate Judge has concurrent jurisdiction over the whole district to which he is appointed.
5. In the case with which we are here concerned, the plaint was entertained by a Judicial Officer at Arrah other than the officer to whom it would ordinarily have been presented. If the mistake had been perceived when the plaint was presented it would have been returned for presentation to the officer who would entertain it in the ordinary course of business but since it happens that it was entertained in the Third Court of the Munsif at Arrah, it remains quite properly on the file of that Court since the Munsif of the Third Court has jurisdiction over the Barhara Thana as well as over any other Thana, in the Sadr Sub-Division of Arrah.
6. There is, therefore, no ground for revision of the order of the learned Munsif, The application is dismissed with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur.