1967 Supreme(Del) 130
High Court Of Delhi
FIKSON TRADING COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
QAMARUDDIN - Respondent
Civil 5 of 1967
Decided On : 07/31/1967
H.R.SAWHNEY, R.L.TANDON, V.K.Kaushal, Vijay Kishan
An order under section 10 C. P. C. is not an order dealing with procedure; it is an order dealing with the jurisdiction of the Court.
Headnote:
STAY OF SUIT - RES JUDICATA - COURT OF SMALL CAUSES - JURISDICTION - ORDER UNDER SECTION 10 C. P. C. - ERROR OF JURISDICTION - REVISION - SECTION 115 C. P. C. - An order under section 10 C. P. C. is not an order dealing with procedure; it is an order dealing with the jurisdiction of the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Fikson Trading Company, filed a suit in the Court of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi seeking a declaration that it was the owner of the plot in dispute and that the defendant had no title to or interest therein. The defendant had previously instituted a suit against the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes Delhi for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the same property. The defendant raised a preliminary objection in the title suit, alleging that it should be stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of the lower court staying the title suit was an error of jurisdiction. The court found that a Court of Small Causes does not have exclusive jurisdiction to decide a question of title, and therefore a judgment rendered by it would not operate as res judicata in the title suit. The court also held that the order under section 10 C. P. C. was not an order dealing with procedure, but rather an order dealing with the jurisdiction of the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the lower court staying the title suit was an error of jurisdiction. 2. Whether a Court of Small Causes has exclusive jurisdiction to decide a question of title. 3. Whether a judgment rendered by a Court of Small Causes would operate as res judicata in a title suit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order under section 10 C. P. C. is not an order dealing with procedure; it is an order dealing with the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. A Court of Small Causes does not have exclusive jurisdiction to decide a question of title. 3. A judgment rendered by a Court of Small Causes would not operate as res judicata in a title suit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the lower court staying the title suit.
( 1 ) THE petitioner Fikson Trading Company was plaintiff in a suit instituted by it in the Court of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi seeking a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was owner of the plot in dispute and that the defendant had no title to or interest therein. It was alleged that the plaintiff was in possession of the plot in dispute in its own right-and had put up strnctures upon it at its own expense and that. the defendant-respondent was wrongly alleging that he was the owner of the superstructures and bad let out the premises to the plaintiff.
( 2 ) IT appears that before the plaintiff brought its suit, the defendant had instituted a suit against it in the Court of Small Causes Delhi for recovery of Rs. 350. 00on account of arrears of rent in respect of the property in dispute. The defendant therefore, while denying the plaintiff's claim in the suit for declaration, raised a preliminary objection and alleged that the suit was liable to be stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant's objection prevailed and the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 2nd November, 1966 stayed the suit of the plaintiff.
( 3 ) I he present revision petition is directed against the said older of the learned Subordinate Judge. Before me Mr. Vijav Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a large number of case 1916 Allahabad 26), Champat v. Toti Rnm, Mayat Mohammad v. Bar Gaushala Ltd. Lyapur, Puvvada Srtyanarayanamatihy v. Gadepalli Sundara Rao, Mohd. Yusuf v. Abdul Wahid and others, Pateswari Parshad Singh v. A. S. Gilan, Ram Narain v. Ram Sarup. In all these cases it has been held that an incidental determination of an issue of title in a suit for rent of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes does not finally estop the parties to such suit from raising the same issue in a suit brought to try the title. The submission made by the learned counsel is that a plea of res judicata on general principles, can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of Courts of exculsive jurisdiction but a Court of Small Causes cannot be regarded as one having exculsive jurisdiction to decide a particular matter. In as much as the question of title could not be decided by the Court of Small Causes Delhi a judgment rendered by it would not operate as res-judicata in the title suit brought by the petitioner. The matter in issue in the suit instituted by the petitioner would therefore not a directly and substantially in issue in the suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes. In the circumstancas, the learned Subordinate judge had acted illegally or with matelial irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in staying the petitioner's suit.
( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Hans Ra] Sawhaey to the maintainability of this revision petition. Ha has argued that the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge does not involve any error of jurisdiction. I he learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to decide whether suit the instituted by the petitioner should be stayed or not. If in the exercise of its justifaction any error of law or fact has been committed it is not open to this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115. Civi procedure Code to interfere with the order made by. the. . lower court. In this connection the learned counsel has directed my attention to the three decisions of the Supreme Court in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. , v. Bhutnath Banerjee, Vohra Abbasbhaii Alimahomed v. . Haji Gulamnabi Hajl Safibhi and Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hart Jadhav.
( 5 ) THARE is no doubt, as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme 'court, that the High Court connot while exercising its jurisdiction under section 110 Civil Procedure Code correct error? of fact however gross they may be or even eirors. of law and that it can only do so when the said errors hav