Civil court jurisdiction and expeditious statutory adjudication remain protected where no clear bar exists.

Civil court jurisdiction remains available unless expressly or by necessary implication barred, and a dispute over alleged illegal dispossession and possession therefore fell within ordinary civil remedies; the suit was maintainable. The note also states that the High Court, in review, could not contradict its earlier direction for expeditious disposal of the statutory appeal by allowing a stay application to delay the inquiry, because that was inconsistent with prompt adjudication under the governing statute; the contrary review direction was unsustainable. The matters were set aside and remitted for fresh decision on merits, with the statutory proceeding to be decided expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could, in review, direct that its earlier direction for expeditious disposal by the Appellate Board need not be followed if a stay application was filed before the District Magistrate; (ii) whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to alleged dispossession and allied reliefs.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could, in review, direct that its earlier direction for expeditious disposal by the Appellate Board need not be followed if a stay application was filed before the District Magistrate.

Analysis: The parties had a live dispute concerning rival statutory claims under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The statutory authority was required to decide the matter promptly, and the High Court could not issue a contradictory review direction that gave one side an advantage by permitting a stay application to stall the inquiry. Such a direction was inconsistent with the earlier order requiring expeditious adjudication by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The review direction was unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction that the appeal before the Appellate Board be disposed of expeditiously.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to alleged dispossession and allied reliefs.

Analysis: Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure preserves civil court jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred, and the Companies Act, 1956 did not oust jurisdiction for a dispute of this nature. The controversy was essentially civil, concerning alleged illegal dispossession and the right to continue in possession, and such a claim was also consistent with the remedy recognised under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court further noted that exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred and must rest on clear statutory language.

Conclusion: The civil suit was maintainable and the civil court had jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh decision on merits, with the civil court's jurisdiction affirmed and the statutory proceedings required to proceed expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Civil court jurisdiction is not excluded except by clear express or necessary implication, and where the dispute is essentially civil and not specifically barred by the governing statute, the ordinary civil remedy remains available.

---