JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J. :--Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

2. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Aurangabad took the view that an appeal under section 26-A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1984 would be maintainable only against the final disposal of the suit and not against any interim order and was pleased to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable, vide his judgment and decree dated 24-8-1995. This Civil Revision Application challenges this decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Aurangabad.

3. Chapter IV-A1 was inserted by Maharashtra Act No. XXIV of 1984, by which Small Cause Courts were invested with the powers to deal with certain class of suits between the licensor and licensee or landlord and tenant relating to recovery of possession of any immovable property, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits or proceedings. The whole Chapter IV-A deals with the class of suits mentioned in section 26.

4. Section 24 is a general provision regarding all kinds of small cause suits, which provides:--

"If there is any order under Clause (ff) and (h) of sub-section (1) of section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an appeal shall lie to the District Court."

Relying on this provision, of section 24 of P.S.C. Act it was contended before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Aurangabad that the right of appeal, so far as interim orders are concerned, is restricted only to two kinds of orders mentioned in Clauses (ff) and (h)of section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, since no other order is available (appealable).

5. Had this been the correct position, the Legislature would not have provided in section 26-A that an appeal shall lie from a decree or order made by the Court of Small Causes exercising jurisdiction under section 26 of the District Court. In sub-section (1) of section 26-A, the use of the word 'order' cannot be assumed to be meaningless. In every small cause suit, a decree is drawn at the time of disposal of the suit and, therefore, if the Legislature intended that there should not be an appeal in respect of any interim order, it would have provided that an appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Small Cause Court under section 26 to the District Court but the Legislature has specifically mentioned both the terms i.e. the decree or the order meaning thereby that even if there is no decree, an appeal would lie against the order.

6. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is a special statute dealing with a special class of civil suits and the procedure prescribed by this Act will override the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code whenever they are contrary to each other. Similarly, the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 will prevail over the provisions contained in other part of the statute so far as the litigation specified in section 26(1) is concerned. When the law provides special procedure and makes special provision applicable to a certain class of litigation, any limitation, contrary to the said provision contained in the general laws, will stand excluded. The limited right of appeal under section 24 is applicable to small cause suits other than those mentioned in section 26 and so far as the suits specified in section 26(1) are concerned, an appeal shall lie against every decree or order whether it is final or interim.

7. This Court, in the case of (Sk. Jusa v. Ganpat Dagdu Gire)1, reported in A.I.R. 1976 Bombay 222, while deciding the question whether an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code would lie against an ad-interim order, when the application is not finally disposed of, held that the rule provides for appeal against an order meaning thereby any order whether it is final or interlocutory. Order 15-A inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure by this High Court's Notification dated 5th September, 1983, is a drastic provision providing for penal cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document