Skip to content


V.A. Palayyan Vs. Chandramohan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1982)1MLJ160
AppellantV.A. Palayyan
RespondentChandramohan
Excerpt:
- - this objection is well founded since the small causes court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to consider a claim over rs. 500. the action of the lower court in passing a decree in the counter claim in favour of the defendant is clearly beyond its jurisdiction and the same will have to be set aside......a counterclaim for rs. 750 on the ground that he paid six instalments amounting to rs. 750. the learned district munsif after taking evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant is entitled to a sum of rs. 593.75 towards refund of the instalments paid to the plaintiff by way of chit subscription. the learned district munsif also found that the alleged borrowing of rs. 600 by the defendant is not proved and eventually passed a decree in the counterclaim for rs. 593.75. this civil revision petition is filed against the said judgment and decree of the learned district munsif by the plaintiff.2. the finding regarding the facts rendered by the learned district munsif is not disputed. the only objection taken by thei civil revision petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the district.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed against the Judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram rendered in S.C.S. No. 90 of 1978. The plaintiff who is a chit foreman had filed the above suit alleging that the defendant had paid five instalments and since the chit was discontinued the defendant is entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 600 for marriage expenses and promised to pay the same, after adjusting the chit subscription from the amount borrowed by him. that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 373.95. In the suit the defendant filed a counterclaim for Rs. 750 on the ground that he paid six instalments amounting to Rs. 750. The learned District Munsif after taking evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 593.75 towards refund of the instalments paid to the plaintiff by way of chit subscription. The learned District Munsif also found that the alleged borrowing of Rs. 600 by the defendant is not proved and eventually passed a decree in the counterclaim for Rs. 593.75. This civil revision petition is filed against the said judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif by the plaintiff.

2. The finding regarding the facts rendered by the learned District Munsif is not disputed. The only objection taken by thei civil revision petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the District Munsif s Court is' restricted to Rs. 500 under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and1 the Notification under the Act and there cannot be a counter claim under Order 8,' Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for any amount in excess of the Small Causes Court. This objection is well founded since the Small Causes Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to consider a claim over Rs. 500. The action of the lower Court in passing a decree in the counter claim in favour of the defendant is clearly beyond its jurisdiction and the same will have to be set aside. Hence the dismissal of the Small Cause suit is confirmed and the decree passed in the counter-claim is set aside and the counter-claim is directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. In the result the civil revision petition is party allowed and there will be no order as to costs.


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