Claims within Small Causes Court jurisdiction deemed maintainable; key distinctions between mesne profits and damages established for adjudication during trial.

ORDER :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for the common respondent, in both the revision petitions.

2. These two revision petitions are filed by the defendants in S.C.No.15143/2024 and S.C.No. 15144/2024, respectively, pending on the file of the XVII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, challenging the dismissal of the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’). Both suits were filed for ejectment and mesne profits.

3. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petitions, are as under:

3(i) Defendants having entered appearance in the aforesaid suits, filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that as per Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, there is no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Therefore, the plaints were sought to be returned to the proper Court for presentation. The same was objected to by the plaintiff.

3(ii) Learned trial Judge after considering the objections and rival contentions of the parties, by impugned orders in both the suits, rejected the applications, with a cost of Rs.1,000/- each.

3(iii) Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants, in both suits, are before this Court.

4. Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petitions, would contend that under Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is not available to entertain the suit inasmuch as apart from claiming Rs.1,98,000/-, there is a claim for mesne profits in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court gets ousted.

4(i) He would also emphasize that for consideration of the pecuniary jurisdiction, it is the valuation paragraph in the plaint that needs to be considered, which would per se makes it clear that the suits before the Small Causes Court are not maintainable for want of jurisdiction in view of Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act and sought for admitting the revision petitions for further consideration.

4(ii) Sri Mohammed Tahir, lastly, submitted that the reliance placed by the learned trial Judge in the impugned orders on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid vs. A.S. Onkarappa , ILR 2011 KAR 229 is not applicable to the case on hand.

4(iii) Further, in support of his case, Sri Mohammed Tahir placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gopalakrishna Pillai and others vs. Meenakshi Ayal and others , AIR 1967 SC 155

5. Per contra, Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions, supports the impugned orders.

6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material law on record, it is crystal clear that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts at Bangalore, as per the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, is now to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas in the other Small Causes Courts in the State, it is Rs.1,00,000/-. The said amendment is made by issuing necessary notification.

7. The valuation paragraphs in both suits are considered by this Court.

8. It is those averments in the plaints which are pressed into service by the counsel for revision petitioners seeking to hold that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction.

9. As could be seen from those averments, the claim is in a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- and therefo