LODHA, J.—This is a revision application by the defendant under sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance, 1950 (Ordinance No. VIII of 1950) from the judgment and decree by Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaipur City, dated 18-5-70 by which an ex parte decree for Rs. 500/- was passed against the petitioner.

2. Two points have been argued in support of the revision application. It is submitted in the first instance that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and secondly it is argued that there is absolutely no legal evidence on which the decree can be sustained.

3. The plaintiff non-petitioner alleged in the plaint that he had entered into a contract with the Assistant Engineer, Engineering Cell (Fisheries) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to supply two generators on hire for five days from 20-5-69 onwards. But by his letter dated 29 5-69 received at about 5 p. m. marked Ex. 4 the Assistant Engineer cancelled the contract. The plaintiffs case is that on account of the said act of the Assistant Engineer, he was put to a loss of Rs. 500/- for which he filed the present suit in the Court of Small Causes, Jaipur City. The defendant, the State of Rajasthan, neither filed a written statement nor put in appearance on the adjourned date of hearing and consequently on the basis of an affidavit filed by the plaintiff, the learned Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit (ex parte) as prayed.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in that the suit is not for damages, pure and simple, on account of breach of contract but is one concerning an act or order made by an officer of the State Government in his official capacity and is, therefore, excepted from the cognizance of a court of Small Causes under Art. 3 of the Schedule appended to the ordinance. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Sital Prasad vs. United Provinces(1). On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has urged that the present is a case of mere failure on the part of the Government officer to carry out a contract and consequenly it cannot be regarded as a suit concerning an act or order purporting to be done or made by an officer of the Government in his official capacity. He has relied upon Secretary of State vs. Aylavaj-jula Ramabrahman(2) M. P. Salunke vs. P. Zalim Singh(3) and Chunnilal R. & Co. vs. Union of India(4).

5. Article 3 of the Schedule to the Small Cause Court ordinance on which reliance has been placed reads as under :

"3. A suit concerning an act or order purporting to be done or made by any other officer of the State Government in his official capacity or by a Court of Wards, of by an officer of a Court of Wards in the execution of his office."

6. From the language of the Ordinance, it is clear that the act contemplated by this article is not a mere neglect or omission of duty, such as any private individual may be guilty of but it means some distinct act purporting to be done by a Government officer under the authority of his office and reasonably falling within the scope of such authority; and the plaintiff, to bring a case under this Article, must allege some particular act of a particular official which has given rise to the suit. In Chunnilal R. & Co. vs. Union of India (supra) it was held that a suit for compensation for loss or injury to goods entrusted to a Railway as a carrier is essentially a suit for damages for breach of contract and such a breach of contract committed by a railway administration cannot be regarded as an act done or purporting to be done by or by order of the Central Govt. within the meaning of Art. 1. It was further held that Art. 3 also does not cover a suit on a breach of contract by the railway administration because a breach of contract cannot be regarded as an act purporting to be done by an officer of the Central Govt. in his official capacity. It was also observed that no specific act of an officer of the Central Government is required to be alleged by the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document