Skip to content


Mt. Bibi Kasturi and anr. Vs. Balmukand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All106
AppellantMt. Bibi Kasturi and anr.
RespondentBalmukand
Excerpt:
- .....no force in the second objection. where a court has exercised discretion, the high court would not interfere in revision with that discretion. but that is a matter quite different from saying that no case is decided and a high court can never have any jurisdiction to interfere at all. it seems to me that if a court of small causes has acted grossly wrongly or with material irregularity, for instance, where the plaintiff's rights does not in any way depend on the proof or disproof of title to immovable property or any other title and the court arbitrarily returns the plaint for presentation to the proper court, it must be treated as if a case has been decided which would give jurisdiction to the high court to interfere under section 25. if the learned judges in the case of subal ram dutt.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, C.J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this revision. The Court of Small Causes has returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. It is urged that the order was appealable inasmuch as an appeal lay to the District Judge, and as none has been filed, there could be no revision. In the second place, it is urged that the order of the Court of Small Causes returning the plaint does not come within the meaning of Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, and that therefore no revision lies. Reliance is placed on the case of Subal Ram Dutt v. Jagadananda Mazumdar [1903] 1 I.C. 288. In my opinion, the order returning the plaint purported to have been passed under Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and not under Order 7, C.P.C. Section 27 of the Act makes the order final. It cannot therefore be contended that an appeal lay ' from the order, because the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable under Section 17(1) of the Act only so far as it was not inconsistent within the provisions of the Act.

2. I also see no force in the second objection. Where a Court has exercised discretion, the High Court would not interfere in revision with that discretion. But that is a matter quite different from saying that no case is decided and a High Court can never have any jurisdiction to interfere at all. It seems to me that if a Court of Small Causes has acted grossly wrongly or with material irregularity, for instance, where the plaintiff's rights does not in any way depend on the proof or disproof of title to immovable property or any other title and the Court arbitrarily returns the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, it must be treated as if a case has been decided which would give jurisdiction to the High Court to interfere under Section 25. If the learned Judges in the case of Subal Ram Dutt v. Jagadananda Mazumdar [1908] 1 I.C. 288 meant to lay down as a general proposition that any order purporting to be passed under Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for the return of a plaint to be filed in the proper Court is not an order passed in a case decidcd within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act. I am, with great respect, unable to agree with them. As stated above, if the question is merely one of an exercise of discretion, then there would be no interference. But if the order is illegal or irregular the High Court would have jurisdiction to interfere because the return of the plaint terminates the proceedings in the Court of Small Causes, and in my opinion, a case is decided thereby. The word 'case' is used in a' wider sense than 'suit,' and must include the termination of a legal proceeding pending in a Court which, so long as the order is not set aside, cannot be revoked. I accordingly overrule the preliminary objection.

3. The plaintiffs' case was based on the supposition that they were the heirs of Gopal Das, who had put the defendant in possession as tenant. The defendant admitted that he was the tenant of Bhagwan Das and Gopal Das, but did not' admit that the present plaintiffs were the heirs of his landlord. The Court below has very properly considered that the question depends on the proof or disproof of a title to property, and that the case is a fit one to be tried on the original side. I am unable to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below. The application is dismissed with costs.


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