Skip to content


S.G. Bakthavatsalu Naidu Vs. the Salem Municipality by Its Commissioner - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad252; (1938)1MLJ61
AppellantS.G. Bakthavatsalu Naidu
RespondentThe Salem Municipality by Its Commissioner
Excerpt:
- - 2. the contention is well-founded.alfred henry lionel leach, c.j.1. the petitioner was the plaintiff in a small cause suit in the district munsiff's court of salem in which he sued to recover a sum of rs. 184-8-0 as damages from the salem municipality for wrongful distraint. there were three issues framed; the first was whether the suit was in time; the second had reference to the question of the illegality of the distraint; and the third concerned the question of damages. the district munsiff held that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation and adjourned the further hearing of the suit to another date. the respondent-council then applied to this court for an order revising this finding. the matter came before cornish, j., who held that the district munsiff was wrong in his decision on the question of.....
Judgment:

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a Small Cause Suit in the District Munsiff's Court of Salem in which he sued to recover a sum of Rs. 184-8-0 as damages from the Salem Municipality for wrongful distraint. There were three issues framed; the first was whether the suit was in time; the second had reference to the question of the illegality of the distraint; and the third concerned the question of damages. The District Munsiff held that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation and adjourned the further hearing of the suit to another date. The respondent-council then applied to this Court for an order revising this finding. The matter came before Cornish, J., who held that the District Munsiff was wrong in his decision on the question of limitation. The learned Judge found that the suit was time-barred and dismissed it. Unfortunately the petitioner was not represented at the hearing, and he applies for review of the order of Cornish, J., on the ground that it is wrong and that this is seen from the record itself.

2. The contention is well-founded. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act states that the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes is according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. The Court can only act under this section where a decree or order has been passed. In this case no decree or order had been passed. All that the District Munsiff had done was to try one of the issues, and his decision meant that the suit had to proceed. It is, therefore, quite clear that there was no basis for the application which the Municipal Council made and the learned Judge was wrong in considering it. His order will therefore be vacated and the application of the Municipal Council dismissed. The suit will be tried by the District Munsiff according to law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.


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