ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 31.07.2017 in Small Cause No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District, by the plaintiff having aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit.

2. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. There is no representation for the respondent/defendant.

3. The plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of Rs.2,890/- with subsequent interest @ 12% P.A., and costs of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed Rs.1000/- from the plaintiff on 16.10.2012 and again borrowed Rs.1000/- on 21.09.2014 for his family expenses and executed two separate promissory notes on even dates agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% P.A., and in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the amount.

5. The defendant resisted the suit claim denying the suit transactions in toto by alleging that the suit promissory notes were forged and created with the help of scribe and attester and that no consideration was passed on the promissory notes.

6. Though the suit was filed as a Small Cause, as can be seen from the record, it was decided like a regular suit and the procedure contemplated for summary suit was not followed. Section 17 of the Act made CPC applicable for procedure to be followed in a Court of Small Cause in all suits cognizable by it.

Section 17 of the Act reads as follows:

“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 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 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Further, Order XXXVIII, Rule 1 CPC states – this order shall apply to the following Courts, namely –

(a) High Courts, City Civil Courts and Court of Small Causes, and (b) other courts;

provided ………”

Order XXXVII, Rule 1(2) CPC states subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely:-

(a) Suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes;

(b) ………. …………. …………………..”

Order XXXVII, Rule 2 specifies procedure for institution of summary suits and it applies to small cause suits. According to it, plaint shall be headed by title below suit number as – “under Order XXXVII of CPC”. But in the present case the plaint is filed under Section 26 CPC, but registered as small cause suit. Rule 2(2) prescribes summons in Form No.4 in Appendix B to CPC and Rule 3 prescribes procedure for the appearance of defendant which is quite different from that in a normal suit. Leave of Court is required under Rule 3(5) to defend the suit, apart from other differences. Of course, Rule 7 provided that save as provided by this order, the procedure in suits hereunder shall be the same as procedure in suits instituted in the ordinary manner. Therefore, it is only in respect of procedure other than that mentioned in that order, procedure for ordinary suits applies. But the judgment does not disclose anywhere as to following the procedure as contemplated above. Rather, it is written in the manner of procedure followed in normal original suit. However, since the