Skip to content


Satish Chandra Mallick and ors. Vs. Sm. Panchumani Dasi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 788 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Cal195,55CWN399
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 102
AppellantSatish Chandra Mallick and ors.
RespondentSm. Panchumani Dasi
Appellant AdvocateBinayak Nath Banerjee and ;Sushil Kumar Biswas, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateBansorilal Sarkar, Adv.
Cases ReferredBharadwaja Mudaliar v. Arunachalla Gurukkal
Excerpt:
- .....iyer air (4) 1917 mad 128, and 'bharadwaja mudaliar v. arunachalla gurukkal', 45 ind cas 414 (mad).4. having regard to these authorities it appears to me that the learned munsif could try both claims and it would be extremely convenient if he did so because it would avoid two distinct proceedings in different courts. the opposite party has no objection and that being so i would set aside the order of the learned munsif and direct that he hear and determine both the claims for ground rent and municipal taxes and dispose of the same according to law.5. the rule is made absolute. in the circumstances i make no order as to costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

Harries, C.J.

1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Munsif whereby ha directed that a suit which had been filed for recovery of arrears of ground rent and municipal taxes should proceed only with regard to the claim for ground rent.

2. It is common ground that the Munsif had Jurisdiction to deal with the claim for ground rent which amounted to Rs. 420/-. It is also admitted that the claim for municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 252/- was triable in the Small Cause Court. The learned Munsif was of opinion that he could only proceed with the claim for arrears of ground rent and that the claim for municipal taxes should be heard and determined in the Small Cause Court.

3. There is however authority for the proposition that if a claim is partly within the jurisdiction of the regular Courts and partly within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for the consolidated amount in the regular Courts. (See 'Ramasami Aiyangar v. Gobinda Iyer AIR (4) 1917 Mad 128, and 'Bharadwaja Mudaliar v. Arunachalla Gurukkal', 45 Ind Cas 414 (Mad).

4. Having regard to these authorities it appears to me that the learned Munsif could try both claims and it would be extremely convenient if he did so because it would avoid two distinct proceedings in different Courts. The opposite party has no objection and that being so I would set aside the order of the learned Munsif and direct that he hear and determine both the claims for ground rent and municipal taxes and dispose of the same according to law.

5. The Rule is made absolute. In the circumstances I make no order as to costs.


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