William Singho V. Edwin Singho

1957 Present : L. W. de Silva, A.J.

WILLIAM SINGHO et al., Appellants, and EDWIN SINGHO
Respondent

S. C. 200-C. R., Avissawella, 600

Jurisdiction-Debt, damage or demand not exceeding Rs. 100-Exclusive jurisdiction of Rural Court-Rural Courts Ordinance, No. 12 of 1945, ss. 9 (1) {a), 11, 12- ! Procedure Code, s. 636.

Plaintiff bona fide and without any intention of evading the jurisdiction of the Rural Court instituted action in the Court of Requests for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 125. After trial, the Commissioner entered judgment in a sum of Rs. 66 in favour of the plaintiff.

Held, that, under sections 9 (1) (a), 11 and 12 of the Rural Courts Ordinance, read with section 636 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court of Requests had no jurisdiction to enter judgment for a sum which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rural Court.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Avissawella.

G. T. Samerawickreme, for defendants-appellants.

N. Samarakoon, with S. Sharvananda, for plaintiff-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 31,1957. L. W. de SILVA, A.J.-

The only point taken at the hearing of this appeal is that the debt due to the plaintiff-respondent from the defendants-appellants fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rural Court, and the Court of Requests had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case. The action was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 125 alleged to be the respondent's share of the value of timber sold and appropriated by the appellants. After trial, the learned Commissioner of Requests entered judgment in a sum of Rs. 66 in favour of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellants relied on section 636 of the Civil Procedure Code and sections 11 and 12 of the Rural Courts Ordinance No. 12 of 1945 and contended that the Commissioner should have dismissed the action or referred the parties to the Rural Court since the case came within its exclusive jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, maintained that the Commissioner had jurisdiction and was not obliged to transfer the trial to the Rural Court since the respondent had made his claim bona- fide and without any intention of evading the jurisdiction of the Rural Court. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the respondent referred me to the following decisions : Loku Banda et al. v. Yahapela Veda et al.[1 (1912) 15 N. L. R. 487. ], Carolis and another v. Siyadoris and others[2 (1916) 2 C. W. R. 181.], and Komale v. Petha et al.[3 (1921) 23 N. L. R. 251.]. The provisions of section 636 of the Civil Procedure Code do not appear to have been considered in these cases. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the decisions relied on by the respondent have no application to the Rural Courts Ordinance now in force, and I have no difficulty in agreeing with him.

In Loku Banda's case1, which was followed in the two later cases, Lascelles C. J. considered the construction of sections 28 and 34 of " The Village Communities Ordinance, 1889". Section 28 assigned to the Village Tribunal all cases in which the debt, damage, or demand shall not exceed twenty rupees. Section 34, after declaring that the jurisdiction conferred on Village Tribunals is exclusive, and shall not be exercised by any other tribunal on any plea or pretext whatsoever, enacted:-

" And, in order to prevent the jurisdiction of these tribunals being evaded, it shall be the duty of any court, civil or criminal, whenever it shall

appear to them that any case brought before them is one properly cognizable by the Village Tribunal established in any place (and it shall be competent to a Commissioner of Requests or Police Magistrate to examine the parties at any stage of the case in order to ascertain this), to stop the further progress of such case, and to-refer the parties to the Village Tribunals, and to condemn the parties; in costs as to such court shall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document