Skip to content


imdad Ali Khan Vs. Zamir-ul-hasan Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1922)ILR44All59
Appellantimdad Ali Khan
RespondentZamir-ul-hasan Khan
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1887 (provincial small cause courts act), section 35 - jurisdiction--appeal--suit instituted in court of munsif having small cause court jurisdiction--munsif succeeded in court of munsif having such jurisdiction--suit tried by latter officer--appeal. - .....instance the munsif tried the suit, and, therefore, an appeal lay from his decree to the district judge. the appellate court seems to have been of the opinion that the munsif ought to have returned the plaint for presentation on the regular side of the court. i do not agree with this view, as at the time when the munsif proceeded to try the suit he had no jurisdiction to try it as a small cause court suit, and this is what section 35 of the small cause courts act provides. this case is very similar to that of surju prasad v. mahadeo pande (1915) i.l.r. 37 all. 450. i agree with the ruling in that case and i hold that the district judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the lower appellate court ought to have tried it on the merits. i allow the application, set aside the.....
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. This is an application for revision against an order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, refusing to entertain an appeal preferred by the applicant and dismissing it on the ground that no appeal lay. The facts were these:A suit was brought in the Court of a Munsif who had been vested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes for the recovery of damages for cutting down the branch of a tree. The suit was undoubtedly one of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes and was accordingly instituted on the Small Cause Court side of the Munsif's Court. Before the cause came to trial the Munsif proceeded on leave and was succeeded by an officer who was not vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge. He tried the suit as a regular suit and made a decree for a portion of the claim. An appeal was preferred from that decree, but the appellate court refused to entertain the appeal and held that no appeal lay. This view of the lower appellate court is in my opinion erroneous. Under the provisions of Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, if a court vested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes ceases to have such powers, the officer who tries the case should try it as a suit which he would ordinarily have tried. In the present case the Munsif who tried the suit had no Small Cause Court powers, and, therefore, he was bound to try the suit as a regular suit instituted in the Court of a Munsif who did not possess Small Cause Court powers. In the present instance the Munsif tried the suit, and, therefore, an appeal lay from his decree to the District Judge. The appellate court seems to have been of the opinion that the Munsif ought to have returned the plaint for presentation on the regular side of the court. I do not agree with this view, as at the time when the Munsif proceeded to try the suit he had no jurisdiction to try it as a Small Cause Court suit, and this is what Section 35 of the Small Cause Courts Act provides. This case is very similar to that of Surju Prasad v. Mahadeo Pande (1915) I.L.R. 37 All. 450. I agree with the ruling in that case and I hold that the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the lower appellate court ought to have tried it on the merits. I allow the application, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to that court with directions to try it on the merits. Costs here and hitherto will be coats in the cause.


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