Skip to content


Chunni Lal Vs. Gokul - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All112; 66Ind.Cas.816
AppellantChunni Lal
RespondentGokul
Cases ReferredMahima Chandra Sirdar v. Kali Mandol
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1881), section 32, clause 2 - suit filed as regular suit--judge given extended powers of small cause court--suit cannot be tried as small cause court suit. - .....under the small cause court act were extended up to rs. 250. he, therefore, tried the suit as a suit of small causes. the defense to the suit was that certain payments had been trade. the court accepted the evidence of the defendant and gave the plaintiff a decree for rs. 78 only. it is urged before me that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit as small cause suit, and it seems to me that having regard to section 32, clause (2) and section 33 of the provincial small cause court act (act ix of 1887), the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, which had been filed properly as a regular suit, as a small cause court suit. paragraph 2 of section 32 runs as follows:---'nothing in sub-section 12 c.w.n. 167, with respect to courts invested with the jurisdiction of a court of.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application in civil revision. The applicant was plaintiff in the Court below and filed a suit on a money bond for Rs. 157 in the Court of the> Munsif of Fatehabad sitting at Agra, on the 12th of May 1921. At that time the presiding officer, the Munsif, had been invested with Small Cause Court powers only up to Rs, 100. The 1st of June was fixed for the decision of the case. On the 19th of May 1921 the Munsif's powers under the Small Cause Court Act were extended up to Rs. 250. He, therefore, tried the suit as a suit of Small Causes. The defense to the suit was that certain payments had been Trade. The Court accepted the evidence of the defendant and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 78 only. It is urged before me that the Court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit as Small Cause suit, and it seems to me that having regard to Section 32, Clause (2) and Section 33 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act (Act IX of 1887), the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, which had been filed properly as a regular suit, as a Small Cause Court suit. Paragraph 2 of Section 32 runs as follows:---'Nothing in Sub-section 12 C.W.N. 167, with respect to Courts invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes applies to suits instituted or proceedings commenced in these Courts before the date on which they were invested with that jurisdiction.' When the plaint in this suit was filed on the 12th of May 1621 the presiding officer of the Court had no jurisdiction to try it as a Small Cause Court suit involving more than Rs. 100. He, therefore, it seems to me, on the plain words of the section, had no right to try it ns such on the let of June. The point seems to me quite clear, and if an authority is required, I would quote Mahima Chandra Sirdar v. Kali Mandol 12 C.W.N. 167, which is exactly in point. The plaintiff, owing to the suit having been treated as a Small Cause Court suit, has lost his appeal from the finding of the Court as to part payments. I am, therefore, constrained to allow this application with costs and set aside the decree of the Court below and send the case back to be disposed of as a regular suit.


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