Skip to content


Chaturi Singh Vs. Ramia and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.893
AppellantChaturi Singh
RespondentRamia and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 24(4) - provincial small causes courts act (ix. of 1887), section 35--small cause suit, transfer of, from sub-judge with small cause powers to munsif with no such powers, effect of--appeal, whether lies. - .....the district judge passed an order transferring to the court of the munsif of haveli aligarh, all suits pending in the small cause court side of the additional subordinate judge's court exceeding in value rs. 250.2. the present suit was accordingly transferred to the court of the munsif of haveli aligarh and was tried and decided by him on 24th february 1917. from his decree an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff but a preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no appeal lay as the court of the munsif must be deemed to have been a court of small causes for the purposes of the present suit. this objection prevailed in the court below which held that no appeal lay and on this ground dismissed it. the plaintiff has applied to this court for revision.....
Judgment:

1. This application for revision arises under the following circumstances. A suit to recover Rs. 273 upon a bond was instituted in the Court of the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh who was invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes to try suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes not exceeding Rs. 500 in value. Whilst the suit was pending on the Small Cause Court side of the Court, Mr. Shams-ud-din Khan, the presiding officer of the Court, proceeded on privilege leave for five weeks and made over charge of his office on November 17, 1916. Mr. Piarey Lal Chaturvedi was appointed to act for him as Subordinate Judge, but by an order of the 24th of November 1916 he was invested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes in respect of suits, the value of which did not exceed Rs. 250. On the 29th of November 1916, the District Judge passed an order transferring to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli Aligarh, all suits pending in the Small Cause Court side of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court exceeding in value Rs. 250.

2. The present suit was accordingly transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli Aligarh and was tried and decided by him on 24th February 1917. From his decree an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff but a preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no appeal lay as the Court of the Munsif must be deemed to have been a Court of Small Causes for the purposes of the present suit. This objection prevailed in the Court below which held that no appeal lay and on this ground dismissed it. The plaintiff has applied to this Court for revision of this order and it is contended on his behalf that the suit must be deemed to have been tried by the Munsif as an ordinary suit cognizable in the Munsif's Court, that an appeal, therefore, lay from the decree passed by him and that the Court below has wrongly refused to exercise jurisdiction.

3. The case has been ably argued on both sides, and a large number of rulings have been cited. Whilst it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act applies to the case and that the suit must be deemed to have been transferred to the Court of the Haveli Munsif from that of the Munsif of Koel in which the suit would have been instituted, had there been no Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes and that consequently an appeal lay, it is urged for the opposite party that at the time of its transfer, the suit was pending in a Court of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was tried by the Munsif as a Small Cause Court suit, and that in any case Section 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies.

4. Holding the view that we do, we do not deem it necessary to refer, to or consider the various rulings which have been cited to us. In our opinion neither Section 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor Section 35 of the Small Cause Courts Act is applicable to this case. The business of the Court in which the suit was pending was not transferred to another Court, nor did that Court cease to have jurisdiction with respect to that suit. As we have stated above, the suit was instituted in the Court of Mr. Shams-ud-din Khan who was invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction in suits up to the value of Rs. 500. When he proceeded on privilege leave a locum tenens was appointed with powers to try suits of value not exceeding Rs. 250. As regards suits the value of which exceeded that amount, no one was appointed to take his place. Therefore the present suit, the value of which was Rs. 273, remained pending in the Court of Mr. Shams-ud-din Khan. By reason of his taking leave for a short period, he did not cease to be invested with the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court Judge, and suits of value ranging from Rs. 250 to Rs. 500 must be deemed to have been pending in his Court. We do not agree with the contention that under Section 35 of the Small Cause Courts Act, the suit should be regarded as having passed to the Court of the Munsif of Koel and been transferred from that Court. The Court of the Munsif of Koel was never seized of the case and no proceeding in it was had in that Court. In our opinion the suit was, at the time of its transfer to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli, Aligarh, pending in a Court of Small Causes and the Court to which it was transferred, must under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes as regards this suit, and to have tried it as such. Its decision was, therefore, not appealable.

5. It has been held in this Court; in a number of cases that a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes is a Court of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 24, and we see no reason to depart from this course of rulings.

6. We agree with the Court below in holding that no appeal lay from the decree of the Munsif in this case and accordingly dismiss the application for revision with costs.


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