SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(AP) 32

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Medam Venkata Subbaramiah Setty
Versus
K. Hari Rao
Referred Case No. 19 of 1956 referred by Dist. Munsif, Kurnool
Decided On : 07-02-1957

Advocates:
D. Radhakrishna Murty, Amicus Curiae, for Plaintiff; D.V. Sastry for Govt. Pleader, for the State.

The conferment of small cause jurisdiction on a court does not have retrospective effect and does not deprive a party of the right of appeal.

Headnote:

SMALL CAUSE COURT JURISDICTION - TRANSFER OF SUIT - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT MUNSIF COURT - EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT OF SMALL CAUSE POWERS ON SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT - PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT (IX OF 1887), SECS. 5, 16, 32 - MADRAS CIVIL COURTS ACT (III OF 1873), SEC. 28 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (V OF 1908), ORDER 7, RULE 10.

Fact of the Case:

Two suits were filed in the District Munsif's Court for recovery of rent. Subsequently, the Subordinate Judge's Court was invested with small cause jurisdiction over the local limits of the District Munsif's Court. The question arose whether the District Munsif continued to have jurisdiction to dispose of the suits as original suits or they should be transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court.

Finding of the Court:

The District Munsif's Court continued to have jurisdiction to hear the suits as original suits.

Issues: Whether the District Munsif's Court had jurisdiction to try the suits after the Subordinate Judge's Court was invested with small cause jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act bars the jurisdiction of any other Court having jurisdiction within its local limits to entertain a suit cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. Section 32(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act preserves the jurisdiction of a Court in respect of a suit instituted or proceedings taken before such Court is invested with small cause jurisdiction. Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a plaint to be returned only if at the time the plaint was filed, there was another court in which the suit should have been instituted. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court held in Hari Kamayya v. Har Venkayya that the conferment of small cause jurisdiction had no retrospectivity inasmuch as the party would be deprived of his right of appeal. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court held in Kannan Nambiar v. Anantan Nambiar that a suit instituted as an original suit in the District Munsif's Court could remain for trial as an original suit even after the District Court was invested with small cause powers.

Final Decision: The reference was answered accordingly, holding that the Court of the District Munsif continued to have jurisdiction to hear the suit as an original suit.

Judgement

SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is a reference made to this Court by the District Munsif of Kurnool under, Order XLVI, Rule 6 (1), Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The facts that gave rise to the reference may be briefly stated. Two suits, O. S. No. 85 of 1955 and O. S. No. 361 of 1955 were filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Kurnool for the recovery of rent. The plaintiff and the defendant in both the suits were the same. The said suits were filed as original suits in the District Munsifs Court as at that time the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool did not have small cause jurisdiction. Subsequently, by a notification of the High Court of Andhra in Roc. No. 2823/55-B-1 dated 7-2-1955 published at page 839 of Part II of the Andhra Gazette dated 22-12-1955, the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool was invested with small cause jurisdiction over the local limits of the District Munsif of Kurnool with effect from the date of the publication of the notification in the gazette and the pecuniary limit of that jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. The question is whether the District Munsif continues to have jurisdiction to dispose of the said suits as original suits or they should be transferred to the Subordinate Judges Court to be decided by it in exercise of its small cause jurisdiction.

3. The said question directly arose before Umamaheswaram, J. in Appalanarasimham v. Mutyala Rao, 1956 Andhra WR 280 (A). There, the respondent instituted a suit on 26th February 1954 in the Court of the District Munsif for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1033-12-9. By the aforesaid notification, the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge exercising small cause powers had been increased up to an amount of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner raised the objection before the District Munsif that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The objection was overruled. The learned Judge, disagreeing with the view of the District Munsif, held that as the Subordinate Judge was invested with jurisdiction to try the suit on the small cause side, the District Munsif had no further jurisdiction to proceed with the suit though it was rightly instituted before him. At page 281, the learned judge gave his reasoning for his conclusion as follows :

"The Section (Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) is quite clear that a suit cognisable by the Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court. As the Subordinate judge was invested with jurisdiction to try the suit on the small cause side, the District Munsif had no further jurisdiction to proceed with the suit though it was rightly instituted before him.

Unfortunately, the learned Counsel, who appeared before the learned Judge, did not bring to his notice the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court and also the decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court following the said Full Bench decision.

4. Before adverting to the said two decisions, it may be convenient to read the relevant sections of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873).

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act :

Section 5 :

(1) The State Government may, by order in writing, establish a Court of Small Causes at any place with 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. Section 16 :

Save as expressly provided by this Act or any other enactment, for the time being in force, a suit cognisable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. Section 32 :

(1) So much of Chapters III and IV as relates to

(a) the nature of the suits cognisable by Court of small causes,

(b) the exclusion of the jurisdiction of other Courts in those suits,

x x x x x

applies to Courts invested by or under any enactment for the time being



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top