Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhav Jain for the respondent.

Undisputed facts giving rise to dispute are as under :

Landlord-respondent filed SCC suit seeking a decree of eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. After the evidence of the parties was over, an application was filed by the tenant-petitioner with the prayer to frame issues before proceeding any further. vide order dated 8.5.2012, Judge, Small Cause rejected the application against which a revision was preferred which was also dismissed. Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the points for determination shall be framed and mentioned in the judgment and there was no requirement to frame issues in a suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Akhil Kumar Jain v. Smt. Sharda Devi and others, 2011(88) ALR 682, it was incumbent upon the Judge, Small Cause Court to frame issue before proceeding with the case and the application has wrongly been dismissed.

3. In reply, Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the provision of Order 50 Rule 1(a)(iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short the ‘Code’), it is not mandatory or incumbent upon the Judge, Small Cause Courts to frame any issue before proceeding for adjudication of the dispute as is required in other civil suits. It has also been submitted that the judgment in the case of Akhil Kumar Jain (Supra), being relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, since has not noticed the provision of Order 50 Rule 1(a)(iii), hence, cannot be said to be a good law.

4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. By virtue of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable in suits and proceedings arising therefrom before a Court of Small Causes. Section 17(1) reads as under :

“17. Application of the Code of Civil Procedure.—(1) The procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes, in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits:

Provided ....................”

Thus by virtue of the aforesaid provision, unless it is otherwise provided in the Code itself or by the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure is to be followed in a Court of small causes.

6. Order XIV of the Code makes it mandatory upon the Court to frame issue of fact as well as law. Rule 1(5) of Order XIV prescribes the stage and procedure to be followed for framing of issues. It reads as under :

“(5). At the first hearing of the suit the Court, shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend.”

7. However, the provision regarding framing of issues are excluded in its application in proceeding before the Small Cause Courts Act by virtue of clause (iii) of Order 50 Rule 1 which reads as under :

“1. Provincial Small Cause Courts.—The provisions hereinafter specified shall not extend to Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887) or under the Berar Small Cause Courts Law, 1905 or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the said Act or Law or to Courts in any part of India to which the said Act does not extend exercising a corresponding jurisdiction that is to say -

(