Skip to content


(Firm) Phul Chand Suraj Lal Vs. L. Chhadami Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All530
Appellant(Firm) Phul Chand Suraj Lal
RespondentL. Chhadami Lal
Excerpt:
- .....a judge having small cause court jurisdiction up to a particular limit to try as a small cause suit a suit exceeding that limit. this ruling does not apply to the present case because in the present case the trial was not under the small cause court powers or as a small cause court suit. a case somewhat similar to the present is reported in sukha v. baghunath das a.i.r. 1917 all. 62. in this it was held that where a suit of a small cause court nature was transferred by the district judge to the court of the munsif possessed of the powers of the small cause court and was tried by him as a regular suit, the decree which he passed was not a decree from which an appeal lay. a similar ruling was given in : air1929all50 ramoharan banwari lal v. kishori lal ram sarup. in chhotey lal v......
Judgment:
ORDER

Bennet, J.

1. This is an application in revision by plaintiff whose suit has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 750. The plaintiff also had a claim for Rs. 250 damages for breach of contract and this has been dismissed and his revision is directed against the dismissal of this portion of his claim, The trial Court had evidence before it as to whether the breach of contract was by the plaintiff or by the defendant and it found as a finding of fact that the breach was by the plaintiff. In ground No. 3 it was argued that the Court placed an erroneous construction on documents filed by the plaintiff. But the finding of the Court was arrived at after a consideration of the oral evidence and of incidentally certain letters. I do not think that the question of the constitution of these letters is a matter which can be examined in revision. On the merits therefore there is nothing in this revision. The only point raised is in ground No. 1 on the question of jurisdiction. This ground sets out that the trial Court, the Subordinate Judge of Agra, had not the powers of a Small Cause Court and therefore the suit of the plaintiff could not be transferred to the Subordinate Judge. The suit of the plaintiff filed in the Small Cause Court was for Rs. 1,000 and the suit of the opposite party filed in the Court of the Munsif on the regular side claimed Rs. 1,400. Both suits arose out of a contract between the parties for the supply of bricks. An application was made to the District Judge and he passed an order of transfer by which the two suits were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge who tried the two suits on the regular side. No question arises of the construction of Section 24(4), Civil P.C. because the suits were tried on the regular side and not on the Small Cause Court side. Learned Counsel has ascertained from the Civil list that the trial Court had Small Cause Court powers up to Rs. 250 whereas the present suit was for Rs. 1,000. Reference was made by learned Counsel to the ruling reported in : AIR1929Mad513 Murugesa Mudaliar v. Venkata Kesavalu Chetty.

2. In that ruling it was held that an order of a transfer passed under Section 24(4) cannot invest a Court with Small Cause Court jurisdiction which it has not got, nor could such an order enable a Judge having Small Cause Court jurisdiction up to a particular limit to try as a Small Cause suit a suit exceeding that limit. This ruling does not apply to the present case because in the present case the trial was not under the Small Cause Court powers or as a Small Cause Court suit. A case somewhat similar to the present is reported in Sukha v. Baghunath Das A.I.R. 1917 All. 62. In this it was held that where a suit of a Small Cause Court nature was transferred by the District Judge to the Court of the Munsif possessed of the powers of the Small Cause Court and was tried by him as a regular suit, the decree which he passed was not a decree from which an appeal lay. A similar ruling was given in : AIR1929All50 Ramoharan Banwari Lal v. Kishori Lal Ram Sarup. In Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand A.I.R. 1917 All. 454, it was held that where a Small Cause Court suit was transferred to a Munsif the Small Cause Court procedure would apply in the case where an application was made to have an ex parte decree set aside. Eeference was also made to Baijoo v. Mt. Tulsy A.I.R. 1918 Oudh. 160 where the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh held that Section 16 of the Small Cause Courts Act was not controlled by any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure except in so far as that Code may expressly confer jurisdiction on any other Court to try it as such.

3. I do not agree with that interpretation of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That section states:

Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable.

4. It appears to me that the words 'as expressly provided...by any other enactment for the time being in force' imply that Section 16 of the Small Cause Courts Act is no bar to the exercise of powers of transfer of the District Judge under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code. Under this section the District Judge is entitled to transfer any suit for trial to any Court subordinate to him competent to try or dispose of the same. The Subordinate Judge was a Court coming within those terms as the Subordinate Judge had unlimited jurisdiction to try this suit on the regular side. He did try the suit on the regular side and I do not consider that Section 16 of the Small Cause Courts Act is any bar to the order of transfer by the District Judge or to the validity of the jurisdiction conferred by that order of transfer. For these reasons I dismiss this Civil revision.


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