Skip to content


Abdul Majid Vs. Bedyadhar Saran Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All159; 37Ind.Cas.92
AppellantAbdul Majid
RespondentBedyadhar Saran Das
Excerpt:
small cause suit heard as a regular suit - appeal-jurisdiction--revision. - .....the view taken by the learned judges of the madras high court in a similar case was that where a small cause suit is tried by a munsif on the original side and his decision is reversed in appeal by the subordinate court the high court is bound to set aside the decree in appeal as having been passed without jurisdiction. it is in no way advisable that a small cause court suit should b3 prolonged. if there is any value in the work of the small cause court, it is that speedy justice is done and the parties get an early decision on the matter in dispute between them. the present case is a very good instance of the way in which petty litigation is prolonged and carried to an undue extent. i set aside the decision of the lower appellate court as a decision passed without jurisdiction and.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 11-12-0 as his share of some trees which, he said, had been cut and appropriated by defendant No. 1 on some abaii land. The nature of the suit was undoubtedly such as was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the value of the subject-matter was also within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. As a matter of fact the suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court, and it was tried by the Munsif who was invested with Small Cause Court powers. Somehow or other, and it is not explained how, the case was not heard summarily but heard after the fashion of a regular suit and it was dismissed. The reason why it'was dismissed was that the plaintiff had not proved that he had been in possession. An appeal was filed from the decision of the Munsif and it was heard by the Additional Judge of Gorakhpore, who gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 7-2-8, as the price of the tamarind and the bamboo trees. The defendant comes here in revision, and the first ground taken is that no appeal lay to the District Judge who had no jurisdiction to try the appeal. The learned Vakil who appears for the applicant called my attention to the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Kolh'para Seetpaty v. Kanhipaty Subhaya (1). The view taken by the learned Judges of the Madras High Court in a similar case was that where a Small Cause suit is tried by a Munsif on the Original Side and his decision is reversed in appeal by the subordinate Court the High Court is bound to set aside the decree in appeal as having been passed without jurisdiction. It is in no way advisable that a Small Cause Court suit should b3 prolonged. If there is any value in the work of the Small Cause Court, it is that speedy justice is done and the parties get an early decision on the matter in dispute between them. The present case is a very good instance of the way in which petty litigation is prolonged and carried to an undue extent. I set aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court as a decision passed without jurisdiction and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts. Application allowed. (1) 1 Ind. Cas. 543 : 33 M. 323 : 20 M. L.J. 718.


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