SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Cal) 84

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. Mookerjee, Guha
DHARANI MOHUN ROY - Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA KUMAR MITRA - Respondent
Civil Rule 1161  Of  1950
Decided On : MARCH 15, 1951

Advocates Appeared:
Biman Chandra Bose, HEMENDRA CHANDRA SEN, Rabindra Nath Mitra, SATYENDRA CHANDRA SEN, SUNIL KUMAR BOSE

Section 19(p) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act only applies to administration suits, where an account has to be taken of property to be administered.

Headnote:

PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT - SECTION 19(P) - SUIT FOR ACCOUNTS - INTERPRETATION - ADMINISTRATION SUITS - EXCEPTION - JURISDICTION OF SMALL CAUSE COURTS - SECTION 38 - REHEARING PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit in the Presidency Small Cause Court against the defendant, a bustee sarkar, for realizing rents and depositing them with the plaintiff. The defendant denied liability and claimed arrears of salaries and compensation for wrongful dismissal. The trial judge returned the plaint, holding that the suit fell within the exception provided in Section 19(p) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (XV (15) of 1882) as a suit for accounts.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 19(p) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act only applies to administration suits, where an account has to be taken of property to be administered. The suit in question was not an administration suit and therefore fell outside the exception.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 19(p) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act bars suits for accounts simpliciter, without a prayer for administration? 2. Whether Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act gives jurisdiction to the Full Bench to hear an application when the trial Judge had returned a plaint for presentation to a proper Court.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 19(p) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act as referring only to administration suits, where an account has to be taken of property to be administered. The court found that the suit in question was not an administration suit and therefore fell outside the exception. 2. The court did not decide the issue of whether Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act gives jurisdiction to the Full Bench to hear an application when the trial Judge had returned a plaint for presentation to a proper Court, as it was not necessary for the decision of the case.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial judge returning the plaint and directed the court to proceed to try the suit according to law.

R. P. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit in the Presidency Small Cause Court against the defendant who was a bustee sarkar under the former for realising rents and depositing the same with the plaintiff. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant had not deposited the amounts realised by him in respect of various bills and in particular, in respect of 20 bills which had been realised by the defendant, but had not been duly credited in the office of the plaintiff. The plaintiff estimated that the total amount so misappropriated was Rs. 1170/3/. Giving up portions of the claim, Rs. 500/- only was claimed. The defendant denied his liability and the various allegations made in the plaint. He, on the other hand, alleged that arrears of salaries were due to the defendant, and the latter was also entitled to compensation for wrongful dismissal. The learned Judge, however, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, as in his view, the claim in suit fell within the exception provided in Section 19 (p) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (XV (15) of 1882 ). He deemed it to be a suit for accounts.

( 2 ) AGAINST this order, the plaintiff moved an. application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. At the hearing of this application, it was held that no final order having been made disposing of the suit, the rehearing petition was not maintainable in law. ?

( 3 ) TWO points have been urged before us on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. In the first place, it is contended that Section 19 (p) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is no bar to the entertaining of a suit of the nature as disclosed in the plaint. Secondly, the decision by the Court of Small Causes that Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was not attracted is also erroneous.

( 4 ) CLAUSE (p) of Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is in the following terms:"the Small Cause Court shall have no jurisdiction: (p) suits for an account of property and its due administration under the decree of the Court;"

( 5 ) THERE is no other provision under which a suit for accounts can be ruled out. The only question, therefore, ' is whether the expression "suits for an account of property and its due administration" includes a suit for accounts sim-pliciter in which there is no prayer for administration. It is to be noticed that the provision contained in Clause (p) of Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is in terms similar to Art. 30 in the second schedule of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887 ). Art. 31 in the same schedule of the Provincial Act, however, introduces further provisions under which"any other suit for an account. . . . . . . . . . . . and a suit for the profits on immovable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant"is excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts governed by the Provincial Act. There is no similar provision in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, and the only provision being Clause (p) of Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, it will not be relevant to refer to decisions which are rested on Art. 31 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

( 6 ) FOR deciding as to what is the implication of the terms used in Clause (p) of Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, we have no doubt that the provisions so laid down are referable only to administration suits. Reference may in this connection be made to Rule 13 of Order XX of the Code of Civil 'procedure which provides for decrees in administration suits; such a suit is described as being "a suit for an account of any property and for its due administration under the decree of the Court. " Rule 13 of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure corresponds in material particulars to Section 34 and part (i) of schedule I of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925 (15 George V c. 23




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top