Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.:— This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 6th January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 147 of 2007 in the following background.

An application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 10 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 was filed by the petitioner inter alia praying for his appointment as guardian over the person and property of the minor Sri Shila Dipta Mallick. The said application which was filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge at Barasat was registered as Misc. Case No. 147 of 2007 under Act VIII of 1890. On the very day when the said application was filed before the learned District Judge at Barasat, the petitioner filed an application before the learned District Judge at Barasat inter alia praying for transfer of the said case to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas on the grounds stated therein.

The petitioner's prayer for transfer was allowed and the said Misc. Case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore for disposal.

Since then several orders were passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore regarding service of notice of the said application upon the opposite party. But ultimately when the said application was matured for hearing and, in fact, was posted for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore, the learned Judge declined to consider the said application on merit as according to the learned Judge, the said Court being not authorized under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is incompetent to try the said proceeding for want of authorization under Section 4A of the said Act. Accordingly, the records relating to the said proceeding was sent back to the Court of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge again returned the records of the said proceeding to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore for consideration of the said Misc. Case.

On receipt of the records of the said Misc. Case, the learned Additional District Judge refused to proceed with the said case unless the said Court is appointed and/or empowered under Section 4A(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, hearing of the said proceeding was kept in abeyance.

The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner before this Court in the above peculiar set of facts.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that his client has no choice of any particular Court. He thus prayed for issuance of direction upon the Court, which according to this Court will be appropriate for consideration of his client's application, for expeditious disposal thereof, without making any further submission as to which Court is competent to consider such application as per law. But, since an important question has been raised in this application, this Court feels that this Court should not avoid to answer the said question herein.

The only question which is raised before this Court herein is as to whether any authorization under Section 4A of the said Act is necessary for trial of the said Misc. Case by the Court of the Additional District Judge of a district or not.

Let me now try to find out the answer to the said question in the facts of the instant case.

Sub-section 6 of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 defines the Court, which is competent to consider an application under Section 8 of the said Act. Section 8(6) of the said Act provides that in this Section Court means the City Civil Court or a District Court or a Court empowered under Section 4A of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such Court, means the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.

Sub-section 5 of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 shall apply to and in respect of an application for obtaining permission of the Court under sub-section 2 in all respects as if it was an application for obtaining permission of the Court under Section 29 of that Act and in particular…………………

The aforesaid provision of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 thus make it clear that trial of such an application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is to be conducted as per the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Accordingly let me now consider the relevant provision of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to find out the answer to the aforesaid question.

Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 deals with the Court which has jurisdiction to entertain an application of like nature. Section 9 of the said Act is set out hereunder for convenience of understanding the problem:-

9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application.-

1. If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.

2. If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.

3. If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction.

Admittedly the minor ordinarily resides within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned District Judge at Barasat. The minor has his property within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned District Judge at Barasat. As such, the Court of the learned District Judge at Barasat has no doubt jurisdiction to entertain the said application in view of the combined reading of the provision contained in Section 4(4) and Section 4(5) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which run as follows:-

4(4). “District Court” has the meaning assigned to that expression in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 (14 of 1882), and includes a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction;

4(5). “The Court” means -

a) the district Court having jurisdiction to entertain an application under this Act for an order appointing or declaring a person to be a guardian; or

b) where a guardian has been appointed or declared in pursuance of any such application -

(i) the Court which, or the Court of the officer who, appointed or declared the guardian or is under this act deemed to have appointed or declared the guardian; or

(ii) in any matter relating to the person of the ward the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the ward for the time being ordinarily resides; or

c) in respect of any proceeding transferred under Section 4A the Court of the officer to whom such proceeding has been transferred.

Thus, entertainment of the said application by the learned District Judge at Barasat cannot be called in question under any circumstances. Of Course, the competence of the learned District Judge at Barasat has not been challenged herein. The only question which is raised herein is the competence of the Court to which the said proceeding has been transferred by the learned District Judge. Or in other words, is the Court of the learned Additional District Judge competent to hear the said proceeding in the absence of any authorization under Section 4A of the said Act by the High Court? For proper understanding of this problem Section 4A of the said Act is extracted hereunder:-

“4A. Power to confer jurisdiction on subordinate judicial officers and to transfer proceedings to such officers.-

1) The High Court may, by general or special order, empower any officer exercising original civil jurisdiction subordinate to a District Court, or authorize the Judge of any District Court to empower any such officer subordinate to him, to dispose of any proceedings under this Act transferred to such officer under the provisions of this section.

2) The Judge of a District Court may, by order in writing, transfer at any stage any proceeding under this Act pending in his Court for disposal to any officer subordinate to him empowered under sub-section (1),

3) The Judge of a District Court may at any stage transfer to his own Court or to any officer subordinate to him empowered under sub-section (1) any proceeding under this Act pending in the Court of any other such officer.

4) When any proceedings are transferred under this section in any case in which a guardian has been appointed or declared, the Judge of the District Court may, by order in writing, declare that the Court of the Judge or officer to whom they are transferred shall, for all or any of the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the Court which appointed or declared the guardian.”

On plain reading of the said provision and particularly by giving stress upon the underlined portion as above, this Court is of the view that any officer and/or Judge who is subordinate to the District Court is not competent to consider any application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 even on transfer unless such officer and/or Judge to whom such proceeding is transferred is empowered and/or authorized to consider such application by the High Court under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Now the question is as to whether an Additional District Judge is subordinate to a District Court or not. If it is found that an Additional District Judge is subordinate to a District Court then, of course, an Additional District Judge is not competent to consider the said application even on transfer, in the absence of the authorization given by the High Court under Section 4A of the said Act.

For finding out as to whether an Additional District Judge is subordinate to the District Court or not, this Court is required to take into consideration the provision contained in Section 8 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 which is extracted hereunder:-

“Section 8. Additional Judges.-

1) When the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal, the State Government may, having consulted the High Court, appoint such Additional Judges as may be requisite.

2) Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, which the district Judge may assign to the, and, in the discharge of those functions, they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge.”

In fact, the question as to whether an Additional District Judge is subordinate to District Court or not, came up for consideration before different High Courts on different occasions in connection with identical provisions under different Acts. Let me now consider some of such judicial pronouncements of different High Courts in this regards.

An identical problem cropped up before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in connection with a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when the said proceeding under Section 9 of the said Act was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge for consideration. There also the competence of the Additional District Judge to deal with the said proceeding was questioned. The said question was ultimately answered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A. Rajamma… v. A. Krishnama Naidu…. reported in AIR 1964 A.P 460. After taking into consideration the provision contained in Section 19 and Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act coupled with the provision contained in Section 3A of Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 their Lordships held as follows :-

“Para 7. A combined reading of Section 19 and Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 3A of the Madras Civil Courts Act can lead only to one result namely, that the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act have to be instituted in the district Court and it is open to the principal presiding officer of that Court to assign any work to the Additional District Judge and on such assignment the Additional District Judge gets power to dispose of the matter. That apart, the same result can be reached even without invoking the aid of Section 3A of the Madras Civil Courts Act because of expression District Court does not imply District Judge alone. It includes Additional District Judge also.”

Incidentally it may be mentioned herein that the provision contained in Section 3A of the Madras Civil Courts Act is almost similar and/or identical to the provision contained in Section 8 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887.

Thus, Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when once a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act is presented in the District Court and it is transferred by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge, the later has the power to dispose of the matter. It was further held therein that it necessarily follow that the Additional District Judge does not act in exercise of his jurisdiction in disposing of the petition under Section 9 of the said Act. Thus, it was concluded by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that on transfer and/or assignment of such a proceeding by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge, the Additional District Judge is competent to consider such application, as Additional District Judge is also a Judge of the District Court.

In fact, the position of the Additional District Judge in discharge of his judicial work was considered by the Division Bench of our High Court in connection with an appeal under Section 9(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in the case of Prasanta Kumar Giri v. Gangadhar Rauth reported in 1977 CHN page 357. The similar question was also considered by another Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Pareshnath Mondal v. Bijon Behari Mondal reported in (1982) 2 CLJ page 33. In both the aforesaid decisions it was uniformly held that the position of the Additional District Judge is equated with that of the District Judge of the district having identical powers as may be conferred relating to discharge of judicial work.

Again, this Hon'ble Court in another decision in the case of Ajit Kumar Bhuiya v. Kananbala reported in AIR 1960 Calcutta page 565 held after considering the provision of Section 8 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 that District Judge is not required to transfer an appeal but can assign to any Single Judge or to an Additional District Judge. An identical view was also expressed in the case of Anadi Mohan Ghosh v. Rabindra Nath Dutta reported in AIR 1962 Calcutta page 265 wherein it was held by our High Court that such transfer can be made for the purpose of administrative convenience and expediency by retaining his jurisdiction over the matter.

Again an identical question came up for consideration before our High Court in the case of Mohabor Rahaman v. Haji Abdul Rahim reported in ILR 1948 Calcutta page 53 wherein it was held that suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in the Court of the District Judge can be transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as under Section 8(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act.

Incidentally it may be mentioned that Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code authorises the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or the other Court which is empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate. Even then, it was held in the above referred decision that such authorization from the State Government is not necessary so far as the Additional District Judges are concerned for dealing with such an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure when such an application is transferred and/or assigned to the said Court. The logic is uniform in this regard as the Additional District Judges discharge identical judicial function with that of the District Judge.

On careful consideration of the aforesaid decision, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Additional District Judge discharges identical judicial functions like that of the District Judge in the district and in discharge of the judicial functions the Additional District Judges are not subordinate to the District Judge.

Since Additional District Judges discharge identical judicial power like that of the District Judge in the district, it cannot be held that the Additional District Judge is incompetent to consider an application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and the Guardianship Act when such application is transferred and/or assigned to him by the learned District Judge of the district either under Section 24 of the Civil procedure or under Section 8(2) the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act.

This Court thus holds that since the Additional District Judges are not subordinate to District Judge in discharge of judicial functions, they do not require any special authorization under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for consideration of a proceeding under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 when such an application is transferred and/or assigned to the Additional District Judge for disposal. On consideration of the provision contained in Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, this Court holds that the District Judge and the Additional District Judges taken together collectively represent the District Court, for discharge of judicial function of the District Court. But, at the same time, this Court holds that Additional District Judges cannot independently receive presentation of any such application, as no territorial jurisdiction is conferred upon them individually over which they can exercise their independent jurisdiction. The Additional District Judges can only discharge only those functions which are assigned to them by District Judge under Section 8(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act or under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction to entertain such application has exclusively been vested upon the District Judge being the Principal Judge in the Civil Court of original jurisdictional functioning over the local limits of its jurisdiction within the District. In my view, no other conclusion can be arrived at by reading the Section 4(4) and Section 4(5) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 coupled with the provision contained in Section 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, when such an application is transferred to the Additional District Judge by the District Judge, the Additional District Judge is competent to consider the said application as a Judge of the District Court and his competence cannot be challenged for want of authorization under Section 4A of the said Act, for the reasons as aforesaid. The above question is, thus, answered accordingly.

Under such circumstances, this Court directs the learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore to dispose of the said proceeding in accordance with law as urgently as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

The revisional application is, thus, disposed of.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.