SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(Online)(All) 17

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Khare, Tripathi, Sinha, JJ
Manzurul Haq v. Hakim Mohsin Al
Civil Revision No. 619 of 1967 | Civil Revision No. 1269 of 1967



The Court of Small Causes is a court of preferential jurisdiction, and its decisions do not operate as res judicata in subsequent civil suits filed in a competent court.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 11 - Res Judicata - The core issue determined in this civil revision revolves around whether the decision of the Court of Small Causes regarding rent can be res judicata in a suit filed later in the Court of Munsif for different arrears and ejectment - The Court of Small Causes lacked jurisdiction to hear ejectment suits - The Judge found the rent rate to be Rs. 10/- per month, and subsequently, the plaintiff sought a higher rate of Rs. 15/- per month in the later suit - The Munsif ruled the earlier decision does not operate as res judicata, which was against legal principles. (Paras 1-4 and 6-7)

(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - The Small Cause Court is not a court of exclusive jurisdiction but of preferential jurisdiction, allowing subsequent suits in competent courts. The Munsif can decide on arrears of rent if the Small Cause Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the ejectment suit. (Paras 15-22)

(C) General Principles of Res Judicata - Generally applicable when previous decisions arise from courts of exclusive jurisdiction; however, when both suits are civil suits, Section 11 exclusively governs res judicata claims - General principles cannot be applied under these circumstances according to various precedents. (Paras 53-60)

(D)

Findings of Court:
The majority concluded that a Court of Small Causes is not a court of exclusive jurisdiction and thus, its decision cannot be invoked as res judicata in a later suit filed before a competent court. (Paras 49-80) (E)

Result: Civil Revision No. 619 of 1967 is dismissed; Civil Revision No. 1269 of 1967 is allowed with directions for the Munsif's decision as per law.

Table of Content
1. whether small causes court decision is res judicata. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. requirements of s.11, civil procedure code. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments regarding the jurisdiction of small causes court. (Para 10 , 11 , 19 , 40 , 41 , 66 , 68)
4. distinction between exclusive and preferential jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 , 20)
5. endorsement of exclusive jurisdiction of small causes court. (Para 30 , 31 , 79)
6. final orders on revisions and implications. (Para 33 , 34 , 81 , 82 , 83)

1. In this civil revision the only question that requires consideration is whether the decision given by a Court of Small Causes in a suit for arrears of rent will operate as res judicata in a suit filed later in the Court of Munsif for the recovery of arrears of rent for a different period and for ejectment.

2. The Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment, and therefore, the latter suit had to be filed in the Court of Munsif.

3. The dispute between the parties in the Court of Small Causes was about the rate of rent. The plaintiff was claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month, while the defendants' case was that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month only. The decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, on merits was that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/-per month only. In the subsequent suit, out of which this revision application arises, the plaintiff, while praying for ejectment of the defendants, claimed rent for the period preceding the second suit at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. It was in these circumstances that the question arose whether the decision given by the Judge, Small Cause Court, about the rate of rent will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed before the Munsif for arrears of rent and ejectment.

4. The Munsif decided that issue in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff. The revision application has been filed by the defendants against that order.

5. It was listed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who noticed that there was a conflict of opinion on this point in two cases decided by this Court, both being Single Judge decisions. He, therefore, referred this case to a larger Bench. The Division Bench, which next heard it, was of the opinion that the question was of general importance, and, therefore, it was proper that it should be considered by a Full Bench. That is how this revision application has come before us for disposal.

6. The revision application will have to be dismissed in case we hold that the decision given by the Judge, Small Cause Court, will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed in the Court of Munsif.

7. S.11, Civil Procedure Code provides as to when a decision given in a prior suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. S.11, Civil Procedure Code reads as follows : -
"11. No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Explanation 1. - The expression 'former suit' shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III. - The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV. - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter d













































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top