Skip to content


Bhagwan Singh Vs. Raghnath Sahai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana
Decided On
Reported inAIR1949P& H44
AppellantBhagwan Singh
RespondentRaghnath Sahai and ors.
Excerpt:
.....on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept..........make rules to determine the classes of courts which shall have power to hear and decide original cases, appeals and applications for revision. a power has been further given to determine in what circumstances the parties shall have a right to appeal or apply for review or revision in cases under this ordinance and further to determine how and by what authority it shall be decided whether any particular case shall be deemed to be a case under this ordinance.8. the rules framed by the high court under the provisions of section 11 lay down that all civil courts in the province of delhi shall have power to hear and decide original cases and to deal with execution proceedings under the ordinance to the extent of their pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of civil suits or decrees governed by.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mahajan, J.

1. This application in revision is> directed against an order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, returning the memorandum of appeal for presentation to a Court of proper jurisdiction.

2. What happened was this. A suit for ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 350 as rent was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant. That suit was decreed by the trial Judge. The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 986.

3. Against this decision an appeal was preferred to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi. At the hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was taken on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge in this case. It was urged that the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to hear appeals in unclassed suits in which the value for jurisdiction did not exceed Rs. 500 and that the value in the present case being beyond that sum the appeal had been preferred in a Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

4. The learned Judge gave effect to this objection and directed that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellant. He negatived the contention raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the ordinary law having been amended by rules framed by the High Court under Ordinance No. 25 of 1944, Section 11 the appeal lay to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge. According to these rules, a party to an original are can appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge

5. The learned Judge below has taken the view that a suit for ejectment and recovery of sent is not an original case under the Ordinance, but it is a case under the ordinary jurisdiction. He considered that the only case that fell under the Ordinance and could be styled as an original case within its ambit was a case coming under Section 7 for the determination of the standard rent and which was initated by an application. I am unable to accept this view.

6. After a careful perusal of the Ordinance I am of the opinion that this Ordinance gives protection to the tenants against eviction except in certain cases and it also controls the rate of rent. The ordinary law of landlord and tenant has been modified in certain respects in different provinces and under this Ordinance in the Province of Delhi. This Ordinance, however, does not create any special jurisdiction, or any special Courts for the trial of such cases. It does 'not define an original case under the Ordinance or say what are the original cases under it. So far as I have been able to see the Ordinance does not in any way lay down a new procedure or create a special jurisdiction. It contemplates that suits for recovery of rent and eviction would be instituted as before the Ordinance in the Civil Courts and will be determined by them in the light of the provisions of the Ordinance wherever they are applicable. In Section 7 rules are laid down for the determination of the standard rent when a question arises in pending suit. A provision has also been made for determination of this rent independently of a suit by means of an application. Section 9 lays down the conditions under which tenants can be ejected.

7. Section 10 lays down that except as may be otherwise provided by rules made under Section 11, any question which under this Ordinance is to be determined by the Court may be determined by any Court which would have jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit for eviction of a tenant from the premises in respect of which the question arises. Section 11 gives the High Court power with the concurrence of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi to make rules to determine the classes of Courts which shall have power to hear and decide original cases, appeals and applications for revision. A power has been further given to determine in what circumstances the parties shall have a right to appeal or apply for review or revision in cases under this Ordinance and further to determine how and by what authority it shall be decided whether any particular case shall be deemed to be a case under this Ordinance.

8. The rules framed by the High Court under the provisions of Section 11 lay down that all civil Courts in the Province of Delhi shall have power to hear and decide original cases and to deal with execution proceedings under the Ordinance to the extent of their pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of civil suits or decrees governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, therefore, clear that cases under the Ordinance can be heard and decided by the ordinary Courts under their ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction. No special Court has been created for hearing these cases under the Ordinance. In Rule 4, however, it has been laid down that a party to an original case shall have a right to appeal as above stated. Rule 5 says that there shall be no right of second appeal. Rule 6 deals with the power of revision and in Rule 7 it is laid down that a question whether a case is one under the Ordinance shall be determined by the Court of first instance, subject to revision by a Court to which an appeal lies under these rules. Rule 8 says that the procedure followed by the Courts shall be the same as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. The use of the word 'original case' in the rule has led, in my opinion, to this wrong decision. So far as I can see, there is no such thing as an original case under the Ordinance. All cases for recovery of rent and for ejectment are original cases when they are heard by a civil Court competent to hear them. The contention that the only original case under the Ordinance is the one which is initiated by an application for the determination of standard rent does not appeal to me, particularly when the question of jurisdictional value cannot arise therein. A provision has been made in the rules to the effect that the value for purposes of jurisdiction in original cases shall be determined by the amount of rent which is or would be payable for a period of 12 months Calculated according to the highest amount claimed in the dispute. I do not think that it was contemplated that jurisdictional value had to be stated in an application made merely for determination of standard rent. This provision obviously has been made for fixing jurisdictional value in cases to which the provisions of the Ordinance apply.

10. After fully considering the matter, I am satisfied that the expression 'original case under the ordinance' has been loosely used. The draftsmen intended to say that all cases in the nature of ejectment, rent and other suits arising between landlords and tenants to which the provisions of the Ordinance could be made applicable would be original cases under the Ordinance and appeals arising out of such cases would be determined by the provisions of Rule 4. It seems Ito me that the Legislature wanted to cut down the right of appeal and to limit it to one appeal only, and owing to the increased value of property it enhanced the appellate powers of the Senior Subordinate Judge and of the District Judge to hear appeals is such cases. Any other interpretation would make the provisions of these rules wholly nugatory. The one solitary instance to which it was suggested these rules would be applicable is such where, as I have said, about the question of jurisdictional value cannot possibly arise.

11. For the reasons given above, I set aside the decision of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and return the case to him for rehearing of the appeal in accordance with law. The costs will abide the final result.

12. The parties have been directed to appear in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, on Monday the 5th July 1948.


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