Skip to content


Protap Chundra Dutt Vs. Abhimanini Surini and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in48Ind.Cas.752
AppellantProtap Chundra Dutt
RespondentAbhimanini Surini and anr.
Cases ReferredBai Jasoda v. Bamansha Mancherji
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xx, rule 4 - judgment of court of small causes, contents, of--judicial decision, whether can override statute. - .....a suit against the defendants in the small cause court for the price of paddy with interest, the learned judge's judgment consists of the following:the joints for decision are:(1) whether defendants borrowed the paddy in question?(2) whether plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed?2. the first point is found in the negative. so, the second point does not arise for determination. dismissed with costs.' the plaintiff complained that he is entitled to a judgment setting forth the reasons which moved the learned judge to come to the conclusion he arrived at. that turns purely on the construction of the statute. order xx, rule 4, sub-rule (1), says, ' judgments of a court of small causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.' that there is a.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree complained of should not be set aside. What happened was this: the plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants in the Small Cause Court for the price of paddy with interest, The learned Judge's judgment consists of the following:

The joints for decision are:

(1) Whether defendants borrowed the paddy in question?

(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed?

2. The first point is found in the negative. So, the second point does not arise for determination. Dismissed with costs.' The plaintiff complained that he is entitled to a judgment setting forth the reasons which moved the learned Judge to come to the conclusion he arrived at. That turns purely on the construction of the Statute. Order XX, Rule 4, Sub-rule (1), says, ' judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.' That there is a difference between 'the decision thereon' and 'the reasons for such decision' is obvious from the terms of Sub-rule (2), The plaintiff has, therefore, got to establish that this judgment is not a judgment in accordance with Order XX, Rule 4, Sub-rule (1), Code of Civil Procedure. Prima facie it is, because, the judgment sets out the points for determination and what was decided thereon. The case, however, the plaintiff says, is covered by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Malik Rahmat v. Shiva Prasad 13 A. 533 : A.W.N. (1891) 172 : 7 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 337. But no decision of any Court can get over the clear words of the section and, in so far as that decision purported to decide that in all oases the Small Cause Court must give its reasons for the decision, that was clearly in excess of what was stated in the Statute. One cannot add to or alter the clear words of the Act by judicial decisions. The Bombay case referred to, namely, the case of Bai Jasoda v. Bamansha Mancherji 23 B. 334 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 222, is really an authority the other way, because the judgment of the Small Cause Court did not state, as 'pointed out by Mr. Justice Fulton, the points for determination and the decision thereon. In that view, of course, the judgment did not comply with the terms ' of Section 303, Code of Civil Procedure, then in force. It seems to me that in this case we are not entitled to interfere, having regard to the terms of Order XX, Rule 4, Sub-rule (1), the learned Small Cause Court Judge having properly set out the points for decision and his decision thereon. The present Rule, therefore, fails and is discharged. No one appearing on the other side, we make no order as to costs.

Walmsley, J.

3. I agree.


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