The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure when the value of the suit is below Rs. 5,000/-.

SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, C. J.- The question that arises in this Reference is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit on a Negotiable Instrument which has been instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of a sum below Rs. 5,000/- in view of the provisions of the Calcutta City Civil Court Act, 1953.

2. In Suit No. 1459 of 1966 (Cal), (Kamalabala Mahapatra v. Golam Khan), Mr. Justice Ghose has held that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure when the value of the suit is below Rs. 5,000/-. This decision was given on 7-12-1971.

3. The present suit being Suit No. 173 of 1973, (Prayag Deb Ganguli v. Sm. Rama Roy) is a suit under O. XXXVII of the Code for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,235/-. It came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury on 19th September, 1973. Mr. Justice Roy Chowdhury was inclined to pass a decree but in view of the earlier decision of Mr. Justice Ghose he has referred the matter to a larger Bench. Mr. Justice Roy Chowdhury has relied on the Supreme Courts observations in Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936 for the purpose of making this Reference. The observations are as follows :-

"If one Division Bench of a High Court is unable to distinguish a Previous decision of another Division Bench, and holding the view that the earlier decision is wrong itself gives effect to that view the result would be utter confusion. The position would be equally bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decision of another single Judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench. In such a case lawyers would not know how to advise their clients and all Courts subordinate to the High Court would find themselves in an embarrassing position of having to choose between dissentient judgments of their own High Court."

4. In this Reference we have to consider the relevant provisions of :

(a) Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of 1865,

(b) Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 as amended upto-date.

(c) Section 5(4) and (5) of the City Civil Court Act, 1953, read with the 17th item in the First Schedule thereof.

5. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent lays down that the High Court shall not have original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Calcutta, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed one hundred rupees.

6. Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 prescribes that the Small Cause Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature when the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed five thousand rupees.

7. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 lays down that the City Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of the description specified in the First Schedule. Item No. 17 in the First Schedule is : "Suits and proceedings triable by the Small Cause Court." Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 says that all suits and proceedings which are not triable by the City Civil Court shall continue to be triable by the High Court or the Small Cause Court or any other Court, tribunal or authority, as the case may be as hereinbefore. Under this Act the City Civil Court has been given exclusive jurisdiction to try suits not exceeding fifty thousand rupees in value which were previously triable by the High Court in its original side.

8. The combined effect of the above Provisions is that both the Small Cause Court and the High Court have

jurisdiction to try suits above one hundred rupees and upto five thousand rupees, whereas the City Civil Court shall

try suits above five thousand rupees and upto fifty thousand rupees.

9. The question that arises for our decision in