Section 23 of Act 1887 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to decide the question of title outright, but gives the court the option to return the plaint to a court having jurisdiction to determine the title.

1. Heard Sri M.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anadi Krishna Narain for the respondent-landlord.

2. In all these writ petitions, the facts and questions of law are common therefore as requested by learned counsel for parties, are being decided by this common judgment.

3. In Writ Petition No. 43172 of 2005 (in short the "first petition"), the petitioner Ram Bharose Lal Verma has assailed the order dated 4th May, 2005 passed by District Judge, Etah, rejecting petitioner's application 13-C, dated 2.5.2005 as also S.C.C. Revision No. 6 of 2004 and directing for return of record of SCC Suit No. 04 of 1987 to Small Causes Court for expeditious disposal of suit. He has also assailed the order dated 20th January, 2005 passed by Small Causes Court/Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 18, Etah rejecting petitioner's application under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1887) for returning the plaint so as to be presented before appropriate regular Court.

4. In Writ Petition No. 45106 of 2007 (in short the "second petition"), similar orders are under challenge with the difference that Trial Court passed order on 7.11.2005 in SCC Suit No. 8 of 1991 and Revision was dismissed by Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Etah vide his judgment dated 10th July, 2007.

5. In Writ Petitions No. 49621 of 2005, 55116 of 2005 and 55118 of 2005 (in short the "third, forth and fifth petition" respectively) the orders under challenge are dated 13.05.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Etah in S.C.C. Suit No. 09 of 1991, Revision No. 41 of 1998 and Revision No. 42 of 1998, respectively, whereby he has dismissed petitioners' amendment applications.

6. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners contended that there was a serious title dispute and hence the suit was not cognizable by Small Causes Court and the plaint have to be returned to the plaintiff so as to presented before the regular Court as provided under Section 23 of Act 1887. In the first petition, the dispute relates to a shop in respect whereof, the respondent No. 3 Ram Singh son of Munshi Lal filed SCC Suit No. 4 of 1987 for ejectment of petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and committing default. The petitioner tenant contended that there is a dispute of ownership of property between respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in first writ petition and therefore unless that issue is decided, the Small Cause Suit cannot be decided. He therefore prayed that the plaint should be returned since the question of title cannot be decided by a Small Causes Court. A similar dispute was raised in all the connected four writ petitions also, though the parties accommodating in dispute are different therein.

7. Both the Courts below have observed that Section 23 by itself does not oust the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court but provide that Small Causes Courts, where finds that the question of title must be decided in order to consider the grant of relief to the plaintiff, it may return the plaint so as to consider the said issue of title by the regular Court. It is not a complete bar of jurisdiction but it has to be seen by the Judge, Small Causes Court, whether the dispute of title is a substantive one or bogus. The mere existence of such a dispute would make no difference unless he finds that its adjudication is necessary for considering the grant of relief to the plaintiff.

8. The argument is based on Section 23 of Act 1887 and it would be useful to have a glance thereof which reads as under:

"23. Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing portion of this Act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the