Karnataka High Court
B.S.BALAJI - Appellant
Versus
T.GOVINDARAJU - Respondent
Decided On : 11-17-95
C.R.P. : 3195 of 1995
Revision - Small Causes Court's Act - Section 18, Section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure - The court discussed the provisions of Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act and Section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, highlighting the jurisdiction of the court to examine whether the order made in a case is according to law and the interpretation of the expression 'case decided'. The court also emphasized the meaning of 'according to law' and the rights of parties to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant 2 filed a revision from the order rejecting his application to cross-examine the defendant 1 in a small causes suit. The trial court held that the defendant 2 had not made out a case permitting him to cross-examine defendant 1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order rejecting the defendant 2's application for permission to cross-examine defendant 1 was illegal and not in accordance with law, and allowed the revision, directing the court below to allow defendant 2 to cross-examine defendant 1.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant 2 had the right to cross-examine defendant 1 in the context of the small causes suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order rejecting the defendant 2's application for permission to cross-examine defendant 1 was the result of the subordinate court's act illegally and not in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the court below was directed to allow defendant 2 to cross-examine defendant 1.
( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 18 of Karnataka Small causes Court's Act, 1964 though wrongly, it has been mentioned to be under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This revision arises from the order dated 6-9-1995 passed by Sri B. M. Angadi, Additional Judge, Small Causes, Bangalore City in small Causes Suit No. 2949 of 1990 rejecting the applicant's application under Section 151 for being permitted to examine d. W. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party had filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 23,275/- alleging that the same had been borrowed by the first defendant in his capacity as the partner of the Maruti Trading Company. The defendant 2 filed a written statement challenging the plaintiff's case and taking the plea that the first defendant could not borrow money in the name of the firm without the consent of other partner and no consent of defendant 2 had ever been taken. The defendant 1 admitted the borrowing of the money as alleged in the plaint but he alleged that he borrowed the money for and on behalf of the company. The defendant 2 in such circumstances applied for permission to cross-examine the defendant 1 who had appeared in witness box as D. W. 2 particularly in the context of above fact and fact that the firm had been dissolved in the year 1987. The trial Court had taken the view that the defendant 2 has given and made certain admission on during the cross-examination by the plaintiff and it cannot be said that the defendant 2 has got right to cross-examine him. Taking this view, the Trial Court held that in its considered opinion the defendant 2 had not made out a case on any of the ground permitting him to cross-examine d. W. 2 and on this Court, application under Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. As mentioned earlier feeling aggrieved from the order of the Trial Court mentioned above, the defendant 2 has filed the revision in this Court describing the civil revision to be under Section 115.
( 2 ) I have heard Sri K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel for revision petitioner and Sri G. Pappi Reddy learned Counsel for the respondent and applied my mind to their contentions.
( 3 ) SECTION 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure mentioned in that section and in Order 50 of the Code shall not apply to the proceeding and suits in Court constituted under Provincial small Causes Courts Act or to Court exercising Small Causes court's jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under:"7. Provincial Small Causes Courts. The following provisions shall not extend to Courts constituted under the provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, or under the berar Small Causes Courts Law, 1905, or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the said Act or Law or to Courts in any part of India to which the said Act does not extend exercising a corresponding jurisdiction that is to say: (a) So much of the body of the code as relates to: (i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a court of Small Causes; (ii) the execution of decrees in such suit; (iii) the execution of decrees against immovable property; and (b) The following sections, that is to say Sections 9, 91, 92, 94 and 95 so far as they authorise or relate to: (i) orders for the attachment of immovable property; (ii) injunctions; (iii) the appointment of a receiver of immovable property; or (iv) the interlocutory orders referred to in clause (c) of Sections 94, 96 to 112 and115".
( 4 ) A reading of Section 1 per se reveals that Section 115 shall not apply to the Courts exercising Small Causes Courts jurisdiction. Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts act, 1964 contains provision for revision to this Court and if revision is maintainable under Section 18 of Small Causes court, then it may not be material, that wrong provision is referred in the present revision. Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.