Skip to content


Barada Kanta Banerjee Vs. Jitendra Nath Mukherjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Cal345
AppellantBarada Kanta Banerjee
RespondentJitendra Nath Mukherjee
Cases ReferredParshottamdas Chunilal Shah v. Firm of Bhagubai Nathubhai
Excerpt:
- .....having the small cause court jurisdiction up to a particular limit to try as a small cause court suit, a suit exceeding that limit.2. a contrary view appears however to have been taken by the calcutta high court in badal chandra v. srikrishna dey : air1929cal354 and also by the bombay high court in parshottamdas chunilal shah v. firm of bhagubai nathubhai (1932) 19 a.i.r. bom. 486. having regard to the principle laid down in the two last-mentioned decisions, i am of opinion that the court below had jurisdiction to try the suit after it had been transferred to that court by the district judge under section 24, civil p.c., even although that court was not vested with small cause court powers over rs. 100.3. as regards the merits of the case the judgment contains a finding to the effect.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Edgley, J.

1. The main point urged in this case is that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try this suit which was valued at Rs. 238-5-0. It appears that the suit was first instituted in the Court of a Munsif with Small Cause Court powers up to Rs. 300 but was subsequently transferred by the District Judge under Section 24, Civil P.C., to another Court with Small Cause Court jurisdiction up to Rs. 100 only. In support of the contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in Murugesa Mudaliar v. Venakata Kesavalu Chetty : AIR1929Mad513 in which Ayyar J. held that he could not

agree with the contention that an order of transfer passed under Sub-clause (4) of Section 24, Civil P.C., could invest a Court not having the Small Cause Court jurisdiction with one; nor could such an order enable a Judge having the Small Cause Court jurisdiction up to a particular limit to try as a Small Cause Court suit, a suit exceeding that limit.

2. A contrary view appears however to have been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Badal Chandra v. Srikrishna Dey : AIR1929Cal354 and also by the Bombay High Court in Parshottamdas Chunilal Shah v. Firm of Bhagubai Nathubhai (1932) 19 A.I.R. Bom. 486. Having regard to the principle laid down in the two last-mentioned decisions, I am of opinion that the Court below had jurisdiction to try the suit after it had been transferred to that Court by the District Judge under Section 24, Civil P.C., even although that Court was not vested with Small Cause Court powers over Rs. 100.

3. As regards the merits of the case the judgment contains a finding to the effect that the plaintiff was unable to establish his case. In these circumstances, I do not think that this is a case in which this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P.C. The rule is accordingly discharged with costs. The hearing fee is assessed at one gold mohur.


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