The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to a Small Cause Court (SCC) suit and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, emphasizing that the judgment of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon as per Order XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for revisionist.

2. Present revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment/order dated 07.04.2022 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 1, Mathura in SCC Case No. 01/2017 (Smt. Asha Agarwal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar), and/or to allow the application 74Ga of the revisionist.

3. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that earlier SCC Suit No. 01 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No.1, upon which revisionist-defendant has preferred written submission and replica has also been filed. Accordingly, considering the written submission, issues were framed on 06.03.2018. It is next submitted that to decide the SCC Suit, it is necessarily required to frame additional issues with regard to title as well as landlordship. Therefore, revisionist-defendant has moved application under Section 23 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1887’) numbered as 74-Ga, which provides return of plaints in suits involving questions of title. The said application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that after completion of evidence and during the course of arguments, just to linger on the proceeding, the application was moved. It is also observed in the impugned order that while deciding the case, if required, additional issues would be framed. It is further submitted that under Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 1908’), it is required that before passing a decree, Court may amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, but in the impugned order, it is observed that while delivering the judgment, if required, Court may frame additional issues, which is contrary to the provisions of Code, 1908. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Rameshwar Dayal vs. Banda (dead) through his L.Rs. And another; ARC 1993 (1) 249. He has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Vikas Pawar vs. Smt.Tara Rani and another; 2005(1)ARC 196 and Satish Chandra Agarwal vs. Ashok Jaiswal; 2016(2) ARC 605.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and perused the impugned order, provisions of law as well as judgments relied upon.

5. Revisionist-defendant has filed application under Order XIV Rule 5 of Code, 1908 for framing of additional issues, which was rejected. Issue before the Court is to decide as to whether the proceeding of SCC Court shall be governed under the provisions of Order XX of Code, 1908 or Order XIV of Code, 1908 and application under Order XIV, Rule 5 of Code, 1908 is maintainable or not.

6. Present proceeding of suit is governed by the provisions of Act, 1887 as well as Code, 1908 and Section 17 of Act, 1887 provides applicability of Code, 1908. Relevant provisions of Act, 1887 and Code, 1908 are quoted below:-

Act, 1887

“17. Application of the Code of Civil Procedure.-

(1) 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 that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give [such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed.]

(2) Where a person has become liable as surety under the proviso to sub-section (1), the security may be realised in manner provided by section 3[145] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 4[1908 (5 of 1908)].”

Code, 1908

“Order XIV Rule 1. Framing