1925 Supreme(Oudh) 159
HIGH COURT OF OUDH
Simpson, A.J.C.
Shiva Sewak - Appellant
Versus
Jangli - Respondent
Decided On : 14-05-1925
JUDGMENT
Simpson, A J C - This is a Civil Court revision. The first ground is that the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge is no judgment in law within the meaning of Order 20, Rule 4, Civil P.C., Order 20, runs as follows:
1. Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.
2. Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the point for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.
2. It is clear from the language of the Statute that a Court of Small Causes need not give reasons for its decision and need not give even a concise statement of the case. The judgment objected to runs as follows:
This is a suit on a bond, the defendant denies it. The only issue is:
Is the bond in suit genuine? I find the issue for the plaintiff. The claim is decreed in full with costs. Order 20, Rule 1, Civil P.C.
3. It is certainly short but it complies with the law. There was only one point for determination. That is stated and the decision is given. The second ground is that the Court failed to give the real point for determination but counsel has not informed me what the real point was. The pleadings do not disclose any point except one given in the judgment. The third point is that the Court acted wrongly and without jurisdiction in throwing out the written statement put in by the defendant-applicant and not keeping that on the record and the fourth is that the Court acted without jurisdiction in returning to the applicant his application, dated 26th February 1925, without passing any orders thereon. These points are not supported by any affidavit, and it was not explained to me what the substance of them is. It was the first ground on which stress was laid and I was referred to certain decisions which were supposed to mean that a Judge of Small Cause Court is really required by law to do what Order 20, Rule 4 expressly sets out that he need not do. If any of these decisions bear this interpretation, I am unable to agree with them. No decision was referred to which is binding upon me. The application is dismissed with costs.