1. In this case a Rule was granted on the ground that it was alleged that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The objection is based upon the ground that the suit which is one to enforce an award, is not within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court.. It is noted in passing that this point of jurisdiction was not taken before the Judge, There appears to be no ground for it. The learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the parties who obtained this Rule, concedes that there is no direct statutory authority or precedent in support of his proposition. But it is argued inferentially that the suit is without the cognizance of the Small Cause Court, because we must take it that a suit to enforce an award is the same as a suit to enforce a contract.
2. Mukherjee, J., pointed out in the decision in Bhajahari Sahd Banikya v. Behary Lall Basak 33 C. 881 : 4 C.L.J. 162 that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are not the same. Moreover, the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of suits mentioned in the Act other than those excluded in the Schedule. In the Schedule there is no Article excluding the Court's jurisdiction in this case. On the other hand there is an Article which deals with awards and, therefore, shows that the Legislature had the subject in mind and excludes the Court's jurisdiction only in the case where a suit is to contest an award. Moreover, there is express authority against the contention raised. I may refer among the other cases to the decision in Simson v. McMaster 13 M. 344, where it was held that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try such a suit. This disposes of the only ground on which the Rule was granted. It is said that the judgment is not in accordance with law. The Rule was granted on the former ground and that ground has failed.
3. The Rule must be discharged with costs, two gold mohurs.
4. I agree.