Jan Mohamed v. Registrar of Buildings, Civ. Case, 21-A-72; 24/6/72, Patel, Ag. J.
Plaintiff has filed a suit in High Court, Arusha, for declaring him to be a lawful tenant of the suit premises. Plaintiff says he is harassed by the defendant and, fearing he would be forced t vacate the suit premises before the
Suit is finally disposed of, he has filed an application under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code seeking the following Court’s order; “That the defendant and/or their servants, agents or otherwise be restrained from evicting or otherwise interfering with the peaceful tenancy by the plaintiff.” The defendant at the same time submits that this suit (and not the application) should have been filed before the District Court of Arusha and not the High Court, Arusha and as such this suit should be sent to the District Court of Arusha for hearing. Plaintiff has filed a declaratory suit. He also filed an application seeking an injunction Order against the defendant. A day is fixed for hearing this application. The defendant has no objection to the application being granted. But in addition he says the suit should have been filed before the District Court of Arusha and not the High Court and this suit should be sent to the District Court of Arusha for hearing. Is this Court at this stage competent to entertain the defendant’s request and grant it? Is it within the scope of the present application to decide whether this suit should be heard by High Court or District Court of Arusha?
Held: “As far as the present application is concerned, the defendant has no objection to it and gives what the applicant seeks. If it is so is it permissible to go beyond this application and consider the question of the correct court before which the present suit should be filed and make an order accordingly?” This question is beyond the scope of the present application and the court has no power at this stage to make any findings on it. Application granted.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.