M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit in S. C. No. 4792 of 1995 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH 14) to recover a sum of Rs. 8,990/- from the respondent on the allegation that the petitioner had entrusted certain quantity of materials to be transported and delivered to its customer viz. , M/s. Asian paints at Bombay. While the goods were delivered to the consignee at bombay, some of the items were found to be damaged during transit as a result of which the materials had become useless. The consignee rejected the goods and claimed Rs. 13,990/- being the value of the damaged goods and the same was paid to the Asian Paints by the petitioner. After adjusting the freight charges, the petitioner brought a suit for a sum of rs. 8,990/- being the difference amount payable by the respondent towards the loss or damage caused to the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed written statement contending among other things that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that under Section 8 (2) of the Small Causes Court Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the claim made by the petitioner was excepted from the purview of the Code. Therefore, this suit is not maintainable as the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction. This question was treated as a preliminary question and the Court has passed the order on 25-1-1997 holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It further directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, on or before 6-2-1997. Being aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has preferred this petition under Section 115 of the CPC.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 8 (2) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes, all suits of a civil nature and the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts are excluded only in respect of such suits which are stated in the Schedule. He also further stated that S. 8 specifically bars any other Court from trying a suit which is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. According to him, it is a simple suit for recovery of money from the respondent to the extent of Rs. 8,990/- on the cause of action alleged by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent has caused damage to the materials of the petitioner at the time of transit and the said claim is not at all exempted under Article 29 of the Schedule.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent however submitted that it is a suit in the nature of claiming damages from the respondent for the loss he sustained due to the damage caused to the materials which were entrusted to the respondent to be transported. Therefore, it clearly comes under Article 29 of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. Section 8 of the Act reads as follows:" (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exception specified in the Schedule and to the provisions of any law 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: provided that the State Government, in consultation with the high Court, may by notification, direct that all suits of which the value does not exceed "ten Thousand Rupees" shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the notification".

( 6 ) AS far as pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, there is absolutely no quarrel between the parties. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether this claim comes under Article 29 of the Schedule which refers to suits excepted from the cognizance of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document