Skip to content


Lala Jagmohan Lal and anr. Vs. Lakha and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.264
AppellantLala Jagmohan Lal and anr.
RespondentLakha and anr.
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), section 32(2) - small cause suit instituted in court not having small cause court powers--suit registered and tried as a, regular suit--trial as a regular suit by court having small cause court powers--appeal. - .....of the value of timber appropriated by the defendants who were the tenants of the plaintiffs. the suit was instituted in the court of the munsif of sambhal the presiding officer of which, at the time when the suit was instituted, was an officiating munsif why had no small cause court powers. the suit was registered as a regular suit. it came for hearing before the permanent munsif, pandit bishen lal sharma who had the powers of a small cause court. the suit was, however, tried as a regular suit and resulted in a decree in plaintiffs' favour for the sum of rs. 2. the defendants appealed to the learned district judge, who held that the tree, the timber of which had been removed by the defendants, stood in a grove, which was part of the occupancy holding of the defendants, and was the.....
Judgment:

Griffin, J.

1. The plaintiffs sued to recover damages on account of the value of timber appropriated by the defendants who were the tenants of the plaintiffs. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Sambhal the presiding officer of which, at the time when the suit was instituted, was an officiating Munsif why had no Small Cause Court powers. The suit was registered as a regular suit. It came for hearing before the permanent Munsif, Pandit Bishen Lal Sharma who had the powers of a Small Cause Court. The suit was, however, tried as a regular suit and resulted in a decree in plaintiffs' favour for the sum of Rs. 2. The defendants appealed to the learned District Judge, who held that the tree, the timber of which had been removed by the defendants, stood in a grove, which was part of the occupancy holding of the defendants, and was the property of the defendants. On this finding, he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs come here in revision, the ground taken being that the suit being in the nature of a suit triable by a Court of Small Causes and having been actually tried by an officer who had powers of a Small Cause Court, no appeal lay to the lower appellate Court. As pointed out above, the suit was originally instituted in the Court of the officiating Munsif who had not Small Cause Court powers. I think that, having regard to the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the suit could not have been tried by the officer who had powers of the Small Cause Court Judge, unless it had been transferred to the Small Cause Court side by a formal order. As the suit was instituted before Pandit Bishen Lal Sharma took over charge, the case is not governed by the provisions of the Small Cause Court Act. I dismiss this application. There is no appearance on behalf of the defendants.


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