2007 Supreme(Kar) 779

2008 (1) KLO 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
CRP No.541 of 2007 C/w CRP Nos. 312/2007, 254/2006 etc.,
Abdul Wajid and Others - Petitioners
Vs.
A. S. Onkarappa and Others - Respondents
Decided on 27-11-2007

Headnote:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Section 9: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Disputes of civil nature which are triable by Courts - Held, Any Court which has the jurisdiction and competence to resolve disputes of civil nature should necessarily be understood as "Civil Court" A Court of Small Causes is very much in the scheme of things under C.P.C., which provides the procedure to be followed by Civil Courts. By implication, a Court of Small Causes is necessarily a Civil Court. Whether a suit for ejectment is before a Court of Small Causes, Civil Court or even City Civil Court, they are all suits involving disputes of civil nature and Courts trying such cases are all Civil Courts. Further, Though the phrases "Courts of Small Causes" "Civil Court" and "City Civil Court" might have been defined in the respective enactments, it is only for the purpose of institutional distribution of suits involving disputes of civil nature amongst these designated Courts and having regard to the place or area within which the cause of action for institution of the suit arises.

       KARNATAKA COURT FEES & SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1958 - Section 41: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, JJ] Suits for ejectment between land lord and tenant - Held, In a suit for ejectment, the question will be only one of valuing the suit for ejectment in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 or any other provision. Therefore, when the provisions of Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 is attracted and if the requirement for valuation under this Section is satisfied, then the only limiting factor will be if the suit as valued under Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is one in respect of which a Court of Small Causes is competent to take cognizance of. That means if the valuation as per the provisions of Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 or under any other provisions for that matter is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, then a suit for ejectment can be taken up for examination as it is within the scope of Clause (b) of Article 4 and is maintainable before the Court of Small Causes. Further, As of now, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes is Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, all those suits whose valuation comes within Rs.1,00,000/- and within the limitation placed under Section 8 can be maintained before the Court of Small Causes. A suit for recovery of rent could have been filed before the Court of small causes, if on valuation of the subject matter for and purpose of payment of Court fee and jurisdiction if the suit is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the suit for recovery of rent can certainly be maintained before the Court of small causes.

       KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964 - Section 8 & Clause (b) of Article 4: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, JJ] Interpretation -Interpretation placed by the Division Bench in the case of "Sarojamma v K.M. Venkatesh" reported in ILR 2007 (4) Kar 3309 (D.B)" - Held, The interpretation placed by the Division Bench, particularly on Clause (b) of Article 4 of the schedule to the Act is one having the effect of taking away or whittling down even the limited jurisdiction of small cause Court in respect of suits for ejectment and therefore the interpretation of this nature requires a re-look and particularly as ultimately the provisions of Section 8 read with Article 4 of the schedule to the Act are required to be examined in the context of these very provisions for the purpose of examining the width of the jurisdiction of Court of small causes in entertaining a suit for ejectment and not necessarily with reference to the provisions of any Rent Control legislation. Further, The scope and width or jurisdiction cannot be curtailed or whittled down by any other enactment, particularly by referring to the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 or the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 as has been done in "Sarojamma’s case". Hence, the view taken and the law laid down by the Division Bench in Sarojamma’s case does not necessarily lay down the correct law and requires reconsideration. As per the view expressed by the Supreme Court in cases (a) Lala Shri Bhagwanand & anr. v Ram Chand & anr. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1767, (b) Sundrajas Kanyalal Bhathija & ors. v Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 261 is that the single bench can refer the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate bench for reconsideration of the issue in question, direction is issued to the registry to place the matters before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a bench of necessary composition to examine the questions and for the purpose of settling the law, clearing the doubts expressed in the matter.