Skip to content


Umapada Pramanik and anr. Vs. Khitish Chandra Pramanik and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Cal35
AppellantUmapada Pramanik and anr.
RespondentKhitish Chandra Pramanik and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the jurisdiction of a small cause court.4. had the work been done by the plaintiff and this was suit to recover from the defendants their contribution, it would in my view be clearly a case within article 41, however, there it appears that each co-sharer was liable for his share to the contractor. the defendants' liability in this case arose not by reason o the fact that they were co-sharers, but by reason of a contract made between them and the 'plaintiff under which the plaintiff paid money fin the defendants' behalf. this is not a suit for contribution in any sense of the word, but is a suit to recover money paid at the request, of another it is a suit based on contract pure and simple and that being so, it is not covered by article 41, provincial small cause courts act.5. in my.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Harries C.J.

1. This is a petition for revision of a decree of a Small Cause Court for Rs. 469 odd passed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendants and certain others were co-sharers of land which was protected by a bundh. The bundh was breached and it became necessary to repair the damage. The work of repair was done under the supervision of the office staff of the Maharaja of Cossimbazar. That was a matter of convenience as the Maharaja had a staff that could be used to supervise it. The contractor's account came up to Rs. 2000 which the co-sharers bad to discharge in proportion to their shares. It appears that the defendants paid a certain amount but were unable to pay the full amount due from them and at their request the plaintiff paid on their behalf and this suit was brought to recover that payment.

3. The only point argued before me is that this is a suit for contribution and therefore falls within Article 41, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is therefore a suit outside the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court.

4. Had the work been done by the plaintiff and this was suit to recover from the defendants their contribution, it would in my view be clearly a case within Article 41, However, there it appears that each co-sharer was liable for his share to the contractor. The defendants' liability in this case arose not by reason o the fact that they were co-sharers, but by reason of a contract made between them and the 'plaintiff under which the plaintiff paid money fin the defendants' behalf. This is not a suit for contribution in any sense of the word, but is a suit to recover money paid at the request, of another it is a suit based on contract pure and simple and that being so, it is not covered by Article 41, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

5. In my judgment the Court had jurisdiction to hear this suit and that being so, it could pass the decree.

6. No other point has been taken and accordingly this petition fails and is dismissed. The rule is discharged with costs.


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