Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MUNI KANNIAH, P.CHANDRA REDDY
K.Kumaraswami Kumandan - Appellant
Versus
Premier Electric Co. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-18-58
MADRAS CIVIL AND VILLAGE COURTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1951 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - SECTION 28 - AMENDMENT - ENHANCEMENT OF SMALL CAUSE JURISDICTION OF SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURTS - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 254 OF THE CONSTITUTION - RELEVANCE - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT AND MADRAS CIVIL COURTS ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Madras Civil and Village Courts (Amendment) Act, 1951, which amended Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act, 1873, enhancing the small cause jurisdiction of Subordinate Judges Courts from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000. The petitioner argued that the amendment was repugnant to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and, therefore, void under Article 254 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned Act was intra vires the powers of the Provincial Legislature and that the notification issued by the High Court in pursuance of the provisions of that Act had validly enlarged the jurisdiction of the civil Courts mentioned therein. The court found that there was no repugnancy between the material Sections of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act and that the amendment was not unconstitutional.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madras Civil and Village Courts (Amendment) Act, 1951, was repugnant to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and, therefore, void under Article 254 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the amendment of Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act, 1873, enhancing the small cause jurisdiction of Subordinate Judges Courts from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000, was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned Act was not repugnant to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act because Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act, which provided for the issue of notifications investing the Courts specified therein with small cause jurisdiction, did not owe its origin to Section 5 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 2. The court held that the amendment of Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act was within the legislative competence of the Provincial or State Legislatures and that the State Legislature had the power to amend the Madras Civil Courts Act. 3. The court held that even if there was any repugnancy between the impugned Act and Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, Article 254(2) of the Constitution would not apply because the subject matter of the impugned Act, namely, the administration of justice and constitution and organization of Courts, fell within the exclusive field of the State Legislatures under Item 3 of List II of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the impugned Act was intra vires the powers of the Provincial Legislature and that the notification issued by the High Court in pursuance of the provisions of that Act had validly enlarged the jurisdiction of the civil Courts mentioned therein.
( 1 ) THE constitutionality of the Madras Civil and Village Courts (Amendment) Act, 1951 (Act XVI of J951) which amended Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act (Act III of 1873) substituting the words "two thousand rupees" for "rupees one thousand" is put in issue in the revision petition. Its validity was questioned by way of defence in S. C. 192 of 1056 brought by the respondent in the Court of the subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnarn. The petitioner filed a petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the point whether the state Government could enhance the Small Cause jurisdiction of a Subordinate judges Court from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000 may be referred to the High Court. The subordinate Judge himself decided the point against the petitioner on a construction of the relevant provisions of law.
( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, the defendant preferred the present C. R. P. When it came up for hearing before Justice Ranganatham Chetty, he thought that having regard to the importance of the point involved therein, it should be decided by a Division Bench of this Court.
( 3 ) IN support of this petition, it is urged by Sri Ramamurthy that as the amendment of Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act enlarging the Small Cause jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge and District Judges is repugnant to section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the former would not prevail since it was not reserved for the consent of the President as required by Article 254 of the Constitution. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to examine the terms of the relevant sections of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as well as the Madras Civil courts Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 5 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has invested the provincial Governments with power to establish a Court of small causes at any place within the territories under its administration beyond the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court of Judicature established in a Presidency town. Under Sub-section (2), "the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes shall he such as the State Government may define, and the Court may be held at such place or places within those limits as the State Government may appoint. " section 15 of the Act runs thus :"15. (a) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees, shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. (3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order. "we wilt notice the other sections of this enactment in the proper context.
( 5 ) WE will now turn to the Madras Civil Courts Act. Section 28, as it stood prior to the impugned Amendment Act, runs thus:"the High Court may, by notification in the official Gazette, invest within such local limits as it shall from time to time appoint any District or Subordinate Judge with the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes for the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts upto the amount of two thousand rupees, and any District Munsif with the same jurisdiction up to the amount of five hundred rupees, and may, by like notification, -- whenever it thinks fit, withdraw such jurisdiction from the District or Subordinate Judge or Munsif so invested. "
( 6 ) UNDER Section 28, as it originally stood, it was the Provincial Government that had power to invest the Court concerned with jurisdiction of a Judge of court of Small Causes for trial of s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
