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

1984 Supreme(Cal) 134

High Court Of Calcutta
G. N. Ray
KAILASH NATH ROY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
.  .   Of  .
Decided On : 04/10/1984

Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK BANERJEE

The return of the plaint does not constitute a decision on the lis involved in the suit, and therefore, Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is not attracted.

Headnote:

Section 38 - Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court - The court held that the return of the plaint cannot be assailed under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as it does not constitute a decision on the lis involved in the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff contested Suit No. 4506 of 1978, but the learned Judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction and directed the plaint to be returned. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, which was rejected by the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court, Calcutta.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the return of the plaint does not constitute a decision on the lis involved in the suit, and therefore, Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is not attracted. The revisional application was rejected.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court, Interpretation of Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act

Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act are not attracted against an order for return of plaint, as it does not constitute a decision on the lis involved in the suit.

Final Decision: The revisional application was rejected.

G. N. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against an order of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act refusing to entertain the application under Section 38 of the said Act. It appears that Suit No. 4506 of 1978 was contested by the parties, but after some hearing the learned Judge was of the view that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the said proceeding and the plaint was therefore directed to be returned. Against such direction for return of the plaint the said application under S. 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was made by the plaintiff petitioner. The learned Full Bench of the Small Cause Court, Calcutta by the impugned order has held that the return of the plaint cannot be assailed under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and for the said purpose reliance was made on the decision of the Madras High Court made in Ganapathi v. Chunilal. It has been contended by the petitioner in the instant revisional application that as the defendant had appeared in the said proceeding and had contested, the order for return of the plaint must be held to be an order passed on contest of the parties and as such Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is attracted. In my view, the said contention cannot be accepted. Section 38 envisages a new trial of the adjudication made on merit of the issues involved on the lis presented before the Court. The return of the plaint cannot be held to be a decision on the lis involved in the suit. As such, the provisions of Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is not attracted against an order for return of plaint and in my view the Full Bench has taken a correct decision. Accordingly, no interference is called for in this revisional application and the same is, therefore, rejected.

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