5 Learned advocate Mr Shah for the petitioners has contended that Section 34 of the Act refers to a Court to which an application under Section 34 of the Act can be made. Section 2(1)(e) of the Act defines the 'Court' to mean the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district. Relying upon Section 12 of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Act, 1961 has submitted that according to the provisions of this Section it is the Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad alone who has got jurisdiction to hear and decide the application under Section 34 of the Act. In support of this contention, he has relied upon reported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohitash Kumar and Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors., AIR 2013 SC 30 and Executive Engineer, Road Development Division No.III, Panvel & Another v. Atlanta Limited (2013) 1 SCALE 227, more particularly paragraphs 18, 20, 25 and 26. He has contended that the Supreme Court has held that the plain language of the statute should be considered for giving meaning to the provisions of Section and hardship, if any, likely to be caused by such interpretation should not be a ground for diluting the import of the Section. It is his further contention that the Honourable Supreme Court has held in the case of Executive Engineer (supra) that in case of the District Judge, it is the District Judge whose Court is the Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction and therefore he has urged that if Section 12 of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court is read as it is, it is manifestly clear that it contemplates the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Hence, he has urged that the impugned orders may be set aside and the revision application may be allowed.
