Skip to content


T.P. Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. Alwar Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad89
AppellantT.P. Kuppuswami Pillai
RespondentAlwar Chettiar
Excerpt:
- - i am well aware that points of jurisdiction, even though not taken in the lower court, can be argued here......point raised in the civil revision petition is one of jurisdiction, namely, that the suit in the district munsif's court should have been brought on the original side of that court and not on the small cause side as it was. this is a point which is raised in the written statement of the defendant. no mention of this point is made anywhere in his judgment by the learned district munsif' and i am entitled to assume and do assume that it was a point which was not pressed before him. there was no adjudication upon it and the learned district munsif proceeded to deal with the case on its merits. i have been invited however to consider the point, it being urged that this being a point of jurisdiction it is quite proper to take it here. i am well aware that points of jurisdiction, even though.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Beasley, C.J.

1. The first point raised in the civil revision petition is one of jurisdiction, namely, that the suit in the District Munsif's Court should have been brought on the Original Side of that Court and not on the Small Cause Side as it was. This is a point which is raised in the written statement of the defendant. No mention of this point is made anywhere in his judgment by the learned District Munsif' and I am entitled to assume and do assume that it was a point which was not pressed before him. There was no adjudication upon it and the learned District Munsif proceeded to deal with the case on its merits. I have been invited however to consider the point, it being urged that this being a point of jurisdiction it is quite proper to take it here. I am well aware that points of jurisdiction, even though not taken in the lower Court, can be argued here. At the same; time I am bound to state that the revisional powers of the High Court are not exercised unless it appears to the High Court that injustice has been done to a litigant.

2. The High Court will certainly not use its revisional powers to bring about in justice. In order to see whether the revisional powers should be exercised on the ground of this point of jurisdiction, I have only to look at the judgment and it is obvious from that that, this is a question of fact whether or not the plaintiff had agreed that he should take the risk of the defendant being unable to set aside the court sale. That is the defendant's case and it was a case which he had to prove and the burden of proving it lay, as the learned District Munsif very properly points, out, heavily upon him. He has not proved that case and indeed it is a most improbable case. The result, therefore, is that the defendant owes the amount claimed, namely, Rs. 235 to the plaintiff. As to the question of jurisdiction, I am invited to say that amount should, have been claimed on the Original Side and not on the Small Cause Side of the District Munsif's Court. As it is abundantly clear that the money was owing to the plaintiff, it seems to me that it does not matter in which side of the Court it should have been recovered. Technically it may be that it should have been recovered on the Original Side, but if I hold, that the suit should have been brought on the Original Side where such suit would now be taken and having been brought on the Small Cause Side this civil revision petition should be allowed, I should be bringing about an injustice. I decline to interfere in revision therefore. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.


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