RATWATTA v. BUYZER.

RATWATTA v. BUYZER.

C. R., Kandy, 1,041.

 

Court of requests-Jurisdiction to entertain cross claim in excess of Rs. 300-Issue, as to difference between amount of claim and of cross claim-Courts Ordinance, 1889, s. 81-Rule guiding Judge in appeal in referring case to Collective Court.

In an action for recovery of Rs. 160 defendant admitted the amount, but pleaded that plaintiff owed him Rs. 366 on another account, and that he was entitled to judgment against the plaintiff for the difference. After judgment delivered in favour of defendant, but before signing of decree, plaintiff took the objection that defendant's cross claim was beyond the jurisdiction of the court-

Held, that such objection was not too late to be taken, and that it was competent to the Court to grant such relief to the defendant as was proper to its jurisdiction.

Per Browne, A.J.- As a general rule, a Judge sitting in appeal should properly rotor a case to the Collective Court when there are conflicting decisions on any question of law or procedure.

PLAINTIFF sued defendant for the recovery of Rs. 160, being rent due to him. The defendant, while admitting his indebtedness to the plaintiff in this sum, claimed from him Rs. 366.25 for work done by him as surveyor. Defendant prayed for judgment for the balance, Rs. 206.25. No plea in reconvention way filed. On the trial day, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the 27-

only issue to be tried was whether the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant in Rs. 366.25 or any part thereof for work done. After evidence heard the Commissioner found that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant in Rs. 342.25. Deducting the amount of plaintiff's claim of Rs. 160 from this, the Commissioner pronounced judgment that the defendant do recover from the plaintiff Rs. 182.25.

After judgment was delivered, but before the decree was signed, plaintiff's counsel appeared before the Commissioner, after notice to the defendant, and took the objection that the claim in reconvention was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests.

The Commissioner overruled the objection and signed the decree, holding as follows: -

" The inquiry as to the amount of the plaintiff's debt to the defendant was incidental to the claim in reconvention, which involved a sum within the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. In answer to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant said, ' I admit I owe you Rs. 160,' and claimed the difference Rs. 340. It would exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, and could not be entertained, but if the defendant waived Rs. 40 and restricted his claim to Rs. 300 it would be within my jurisdiction. The amount claimed to be set off should not exceed the jurisdiction of this* Court. The excess of that amount over the plaintiff's claim, for which the defendant asks for a decree in his favour, if it does not exceed Rs. 300, is not material for the purposes of jurisdiction. That, I think, is the meaning of section 81 of The Courts Ordinance, 1889, which enacts: ' Where in any ' proceeding before any Court of Requests any defence or claim ' in reconvention of the defendant involves matter beyond the ' jurisdiction of the Court, such defence or claim in reconvention ' shall not affect the competence or duty of the Court to dispose ' of the matter in controversy so far as relates to the demand of ' the plaintiff and the defence thereto, but no relief exceeding ' that which the Court has jurisdiction to administer shall be ' given to the defendant upon any such claim in reconvention.' "

The error Mr. Beven has made is to look upon the plaintiff's debt to the defendant as the amount of the claim in reconvention.

I sustain my jurisdiction and sign the decree.

Plaintiff appealed.

Dornhorst, for appellant.

Bawa, for respondent.

The case was argued on the 8th August, 1899, before Mr, Acting Justice Brownie, and counsel on both

Click Here to Read the rest of this document