Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA SARKAR, J.
Nidhi Agarwal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sri Asit Baran De & Ors. - Opposite Parties
C.O. No. 785 of 2023
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Jurisdiction - Specific Relief Act - The court rejected an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the suit would continue before the Provincial Small Causes Court based on the order of transfer by the District Judge. The court also found that the question of the suit being barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act had to be decided at trial and not at the stage of rejecting the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed a revisional application challenging the rejection of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Civil Judge. The suit had been transferred to the Provincial Small Causes Court by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit would continue before the Provincial Small Causes Court based on the transfer order and that the question of the suit being barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act had to be decided at trial. The revisional application was disposed of without interference, and the suit was directed to proceed in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Provincial Small Causes Court and the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants challenged the rejection of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit would continue before the Provincial Small Causes Court based on the transfer order by the District Judge. It also determined that the question of the suit being barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act had to be decided at trial and not at the stage of rejecting the plaint.
Final Decision: The revisional application was disposed of without interference, and the suit was directed to proceed in accordance with the law. The court also directed that the suit be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. The revisional application has been filed by some of the defendants in the suit, challenging an order dated January 20, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Small Causes Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 25 of 2017. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The application for rejection of plaint was filed on two grounds, namely, lack of jurisdiction and bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for non-inclusion of a prayer of recovery of possession.
3. According to the learned court below, the suit would continue before the Provincial Small Causes Court on the strength of the order of transfer of the suit by the learned District Judge in his administrative capacity vide Order No. 196-G dated March 15, 2017.
4. The issue of jurisdiction of the Provincial Small Causes Court, 1887 to hear suits for declaration and injunction, had come up before this court in the matter of Arati Das & Ors. vs. Snehasish Das & Ors., passed in C.O. 1244 of 2016. On the basis of the ratio of the said judgment, the question of jurisdiction was decided against the defendants.
5. With regard to the other question of the suit being barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the learned court came to a finding that the same was a matter of trial and had to be decided on evidence.
6. Aggrieved, the defendant nos. 5 to 34 have approached this court by filing an application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has referred to the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. According to him, Section 15 read with entry No. 19 of the second Schedule, barred the jurisdiction of the said court. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Patil Automation Private Limited & ors vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678.
8. It has been submitted by Mr. Nayak, that the suit could be registered only when the plaint was presented in the court of proper jurisdiction. It has been further submitted that when the plaint case disclosed dispossession, the prayer for recovery of possession ought to have been included. The plaintiff not having done so, could not maintain the suit and the plaint was liable to be rejected.
9. Mr. Ghose, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, opposes the submissions of Mr. Nayak. According to him, the suit was originally filed in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah which was registered as Title Suit No. 81 of 2015. The same was transferred by the learned District Judge to the present Court vide an administrative order.
10. Thus, the first contention of Mr. Nayak that the suit could not have been registered unless the plaint was presented in the court of proper jurisdiction has been proved to be incorrect. The decision of the Apex Court in M/s Patil Automation (supra) will not be applicable.
11. The further point of Mr. Nayak that Section 15 of the said Act read with the second Schedule would be a bar on the learned court below to try the suit, is also unacceptable on the ground that the suit had been filed in the court of proper jurisdiction. By an administrative order, the learned District Judge transferred the said suit to the learned court below. Such administrative decision was not defective and, hence, such transfer was permissible.
12. In the decision of Arati Das (supra), the same point had come up for decision before a Coordinate Bench. The Coordinate Bench held that there was no doubt that the scheme of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 barred declaratory suits to be filed and tried by a learned Judge of the Provincial Small Causes Court. However, as the learned Judge had equivalent power with the Civil Judge (Senior Division), the declaratory suit could be tried by the said learned Judge, as the powers were interchangeable
A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable property is excluded from the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. Consequently, the bar on appeals under Section 96(4) of ....
A decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction amounts to a nullity, enforceable by revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court does not include suits for damages resulting from dispossession when rights have been previously established.
Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only when court processes are duly followed; failure to complete mandated procedures affects diligence.
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at any stage of the suit and the averments in the plaint are crucial for deciding su....
(1) Rejection of plaint – Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring other relevant parts of plaint is impermissible – Court has to go th....
The court emphasized that timely payment of rent is essential in eviction suits, and striking out a defense should be exercised with discretion, especially when landlord-tenant relationships are disp....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
