Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1963 DIGILAW 15 (MP)

Ramkaran v. Munshi

1963-01-28

V.R.Newaskar

body1963
ORDER 1. These are two references arising out of two different suits No.8 and 9-B of 1962 involving the same questions. They are accordingly being answered together by this decision. 2. The defendant Shankarrao was alleged to have executed a promissory note in plaintiff's favour. On the basis of this note plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 8-B/1962 for the recovery of the amount. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Indore, who entertained it and fixed 8-10-1960 for evidence of the parties. By that time Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, had come into force (It came into force on 1-1-1959). In Civil Suit No 9-B/1962, defendant Munshi executed an agreement to purchase Milk in plaintiff's favour on certain terms. Milk was accordingly supplied for certain period plaintiff claimed Rs. 600 as the balance of his dues. The suit was filed on 15-7-1958 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Indore. An application was thereupon made purporting to be one under section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act in each of these two cases by the defendant raising the contention that the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class had no longer any jurisdiction to try the suit. This contention found favour with that Court and by its order dated 8-10-1960 and 4-11-1960 respectively directed the suits to be transferred to the VI Additional District Judge, Indore, as Small Cause Suits. The learned Judge entertained the suits and fixed them for evidence on 19-1-1962. But on that day he felt that the suits should not have been transferred to him having regard to the provisions of section 27 and other provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, in view of the observations found in a decision of Shiv Dayal, J. in Bhikaram Vs. Ramratan, 1961 JLJ=SN 500. He accordingly directed the return of the suits to the first Court namely the Court of Civil Judge. Second Class Indore and fixed 13-2-1962 and 27-3-1962 respectively as the date for the appearance of parties before that Court. 3. The learned Civil Judge, Second Class felt embarrassed by reason of his own previous order which had remained unassailed and also by reason of the order of the learned VI Additional District Judge directing the return of cases to him which too stood unassailed. 3. The learned Civil Judge, Second Class felt embarrassed by reason of his own previous order which had remained unassailed and also by reason of the order of the learned VI Additional District Judge directing the return of cases to him which too stood unassailed. He therefore has made these references under Order 46 Rule 6 C. P. C. The points referred by him are:- 1. Whether the order passed by a regular Court holding that it has no jurisdiction to try a suit of Small Cause nature is not binding on a Small cause Court? 2. Whether the Small Came Court can question the validity of such an order, after taking cognizance of the suit, on the basis of a subsequent High Court decision, contrary to the order passed by a regular Court. 3. In cases of conflicting orders about want of jurisdiction by a regular Court and by Small Cause Court which order should prevail, when both parties have not impeached correctness of both the order. 4. All the three questions are really different facts of the same question namely whether the first order directing transfer of the suit could or could not be questioned by the learned Additional District Judge exercising small cause powers. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the first order operates as res-judicata and disentitles the transferee Court from questioning it or not because on the terms of the provisions of the Act it seems clear that it is the Court of the Additional District Judge who had jurisdiction to try the suits after the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act. Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act which is material for the present purpose is as follows:- (1) The High Court may, by notification, invest any Court of a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or a Civil Judge (Class I) or a Civil Judge (Class II) with the powers of a Court of Small Causes under the law for the time being in force in any area relating to Courts of Small Causes. Such power shall be exercised in cases arising within the limits of the Court's jurisdiction or in any specified area within such limits. Such power shall be exercised in cases arising within the limits of the Court's jurisdiction or in any specified area within such limits. (2) The value of suits of small cause nature shall not exceed one thousand rupees in the case of the Court of a District Judge, or an additional District judge five hundred rupees, in the case of the Court of a Civil Judge (Class I) and two hundred rupees in the case of the Court of a Civil Judge (II)" 5. The exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid section the High Court issued the following notification which was published in the M. P. Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated 1-1-1959. "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958(19 of 1958), the High Court is pleased to invest— (i) All Courts of the Additional District Judges with the powers of a Court of Small Causes under the law for the time being in force in any area relating to Courts of Small Causes, of the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts and not exceeding Rs 1000 in value arising within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Courts. (ii) all Courts of Civil Judges (Class I with the powers of a Court of Small causes under the law for the time being in force in any area relating to Courts of Small Causes, for the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts and not exceeding Rs. 500 in value arising within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Courts; (iii) all Courts of Civil Judges (Class II) with the powers of a Court of Small Causes under the law for the time being in force in any area relating to the Courts of Small Causes for the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts and not exceeding Rs. 200 in value arising within the local limits of jurisdiction of such Courts." 6. 200 in value arising within the local limits of jurisdiction of such Courts." 6. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the High Court under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Madhya Bharat Small Cause Act, 1949 and Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance, 1950, the High Court issued the following notification which too was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 1.1.1959 :- "In exercise or the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 15 of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (IX of 1887) sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Madhya Bharat Small Cause Court Act. Samvat 2006 (46 of 1949), and sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance, 1950 (VII of 1950), and in supersession of all previous notifications issued in this behalf, the High Court is pleased, to direct that with effect from 1st January 1959, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed the one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes." 7. Thus on the date the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act came into force the Courts of Additional District Judges were simultaneously invested with the powers or Courts of Small Causes where the suits were of the value beyond Rs. 500 and not exceeding Rs. 1000 8. Section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, provides as follows:- "Every suit or other proceedings pendings before any of the existing Courts immediately before the commencement of this Act shall on such commencement stand transferred to the Court having jurisdiction under the provisions of this Act and if there are more than one Court having such jurisdiction. to the Court which the District Judge may specify in that behalf in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the Court to which the proceeding so stands transferred shall proceed to try; hear and determine the matter as if it had been pending in that Court." 9. Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, section 13 of the Madhya Bharat Small Cause Courts Act and corresponding provision in the Rajasthan Ordinance No. VII of 1950 provide for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. 10. Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, section 13 of the Madhya Bharat Small Cause Courts Act and corresponding provision in the Rajasthan Ordinance No. VII of 1950 provide for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. 10. It is thus clear that by reason of section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, the afore-said suits which were pending in the Court of Civil Judge Second Class stood transferred to the Court of VIth Additional District Judge who, It is presumed, was mentioned as being competent to exercise that jurisdiction His refusal to exercise jurisdiction under the circumstances was not lawful. But then it is said that the said decision was not assailed and consequently could not now be questioned particularly in a proceeding by way of reference. The answer is furnished by the decision of Grille. J.C., reported in Singhai Balchand Vs. Khuman, 20 MPLC 67 = AIR 1934 Nag. 257 :- "They have been sent from Court to Court and have not Succeeded in having their plaint admitted, although they have committed no fault except that of omitting to make an appeal or file an application in revision before going to the Court of Subordinate Judge the second time." The further relevant portion is- "It is nevertheless within my power to revise the order of the original Court returning the plaint for presentation to the propoer Court. As the whole case is before me and the three orders passed in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge and the Court of Small Counsel I am entitled to make such an order as will enable the plaintiffs to have their suit tried." 11. I would therefore answer the principal question referred of which the questions mentioned in the order of reference are three different facts by holding that the Court of the Additional District Judge, Indore had jurisdiction to try the suits and that be could not have refused to try the suits on the erroneous assumption that there were no sufficient notifications investing him with necessary powers. I would further act in exercise of my revisional powers and set aside the order passed by him on 19-1-1962 and direct that the cases might be sent to that Court for trial and disposal as Small Cause Cases in accordance with law. Other questions regarding res-judicata etc. I would further act in exercise of my revisional powers and set aside the order passed by him on 19-1-1962 and direct that the cases might be sent to that Court for trial and disposal as Small Cause Cases in accordance with law. Other questions regarding res-judicata etc. need not be answered as the order of the learned Civil judge is held to be correct and that of the VI Additional District Judge is held to be erroneous and has been set aside in pursuance of the revisional powers of this Court when the matter ha d been brought to its notice.