Skip to content


Mizaji Lal Vs. Partab Kunwar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All12; (1920)ILR42All169
AppellantMizaji Lal
RespondentPartab Kunwar
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1887 (provincial small cause courts act), schedule ii, article 24--suit for money due under an award--jurisdiction of small cause court. - .....an award is not triable by a court of small causes. the answer to this argument is that the present suit was not a suit to contest an award. on the contrary, it was a suit to enforce an award by asking for delivery of the money which was payable under the award.2. the learned counsel has referred me to the decision of madho prasad v. lalta prasad weekly notes 1881, p. 159. there the suit was of a nature similar to that of the present suit and the court held that the suit was not cognizable by the court of small causes, it is apparent, however, that this decision was delivered with reference to the language of the old small cause courts act (act no. xi of 1865) a reference to section 6 of this old act shows that certain suits were declared to be cognizable by courts of small causes.....
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. IX of 1887). The question for decision is whether or not the suit was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The lower court held that it was so cognizable. It is contended here in revision that the suit was not entertainable. It seems that an award had been made out of court between the parties under which a certain sum of money had been declared payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this suit accordingly to recover the amount so named. Mr. Narain Prasad has referred me to Article 24 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. IX of 1887V According to that article a suit to contest an award is not triable by a Court of Small Causes. The answer to this argument is that the present suit was not a suit to contest an award. On the contrary, it was a suit to enforce an award by asking for delivery of the money which was payable under the award.

2. The learned Counsel has referred me to the decision of Madho Prasad v. Lalta Prasad Weekly Notes 1881, p. 159. There the suit was of a nature similar to that of the present suit and the court held that the suit was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, It is apparent, however, that this decision was delivered with reference to the language of the old Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. XI of 1865) A reference to Section 6 of this old Act shows that certain suits were declared to be cognizable by Courts of Small Causes and consequently by implication all other suits were excluded from all Small Cause Court jurisdiction. It is clear that under the old Act the present suit would not have been entertainable in a Court of Small Causes; but the scheme of the Act has been altered, and I am unable to find any provision in the second schedule to the present Act (Act No. IX of 1887) which would indicate that a suit for money due under an award is not a suit which is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. In my opinion it was so cognizable, and I think the decision of the Judge of the court below was correct. I dismiss the application. 1 make no order as to costs as the proceedings have been ex parte.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //