Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 399 (ALL)

Subhash Singh v. Subhash Chandra Arora

2017-02-02

MANOJ MISRA

body2017
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 3rd January, 2017, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Bijnor in SCC suit no.29 of 2014, by which amendment application 44/1 and 44/2 has been rejected and a date has been fixed for leading evidence. 2. A perusal of the record would go to show that the plaintiff-respondent instituted SCC suit no.29 of 2014 for arrears of rent and eviction against the revisionists. The revisionists filed their written statement in the said suit. In paragraph 16 of the written statement, the revisionists had stated that they had made certain improvements and had invested rupees three lacs in the accommodation in suit and upon seeing the improvement so made, the plaintiff became greedy and therefore he instituted the suit. 3. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, amendment application was filed seeking introduction of counter claim in the written statement, by way of amendment, for claiming rupees three lacs which were allegedly invested by the defendants as claimed in paragraph 16 of the written statement. Apart from introducing the counter claim, amendment was also sought in paragraph 16 of the written statement to disclose the year and the month in which the alleged improvements were made. Apart from that certain inconsequential amendments like disclosure of age was sought in the written statement. 4. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the amendment application on the ground that the relief sought to be added by way of amendment, by introducing a counter claim, was not cognizable by the Judge Small Cause, inasmuch as, the relief was for a sum of rupees three lacs which was beyond jurisdiction of the Court of Judge, Small Cause and, as such, such amendment could not be allowed and the proper course for the defendants was to file cross suit in respect of their claim. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists assailed the order passed by the Court below on the ground that the jurisdiction of the SCC Court is determined by the plaint. Filing of counter claim is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure to avoid multiplicity of the suit between the parties inter se and, therefore, the valuation of the counter claim would not determine the jurisdiction of the JSCC Court. Filing of counter claim is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure to avoid multiplicity of the suit between the parties inter se and, therefore, the valuation of the counter claim would not determine the jurisdiction of the JSCC Court. It has been submitted that since the suit instituted against the defendant-revisionists was based on landlord-tenant relationship to enforce rights flowing from such relationship, the JSCC Court had jurisdiction under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and, therefore, the Court below ought not to have rejected the amendment application seeking introduction of counter claim. It has also been submitted that in any view of the matter the addition of clarificatory plea in paragraph 16 of the written statement ought not to have been disallowed. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionists. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides for jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. Section 15 (1) provides that a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, which signifies that suits of any valuation which are specified in the Second Schedule cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court of Small Causes. Sub-section (2) provides that subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed twenty five thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. 7. The proviso to sub-section (2) enables the lessor to sue in a Court of Small Causes for eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or for compensation for use and occupation thereof after the determination of the lease and, in that context, the reference in sub-section (1) to Rs.25,000/- is to be construed as a reference to one lac rupees. To ensure that there is no conflict between sub-section (1) and Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, Entry No.4 in the Second Scehdule has been amended accordingly. 8. To ensure that there is no conflict between sub-section (1) and Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, Entry No.4 in the Second Scehdule has been amended accordingly. 8. The benefit of the proviso would therefore be available to the lessor and not to any other party. The other party would be governed by the main provision of sub-section (2) of Section 15. Meaning thereby that if a money claim of the other party, not being a lessor and not falling in the category mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, is above rupees twenty five thousand, the Court of Small Causes would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said claim. In view of the above and by keeping in mind the proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 6A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that counter claim must not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdcition of the Court, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionists cannot be accepted. 9. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the Court below that since counter claim was in respect of an amount exceeding pecuniary limit of the Judge Small Cause, the same was not maintainable in the said Court, cannot be said to be erroneous in law. 10. In so far as the submission of learned counsel for the revisionists that there was no logical reason to reject the clarificatory amendment in paragraph 16 is concerned, it is well settled in law that once a plea is there, the party can lead evidence to fill in gaps, therefore, this Court finds no good reason to entertain this revision only to add the month and the year in which the alleged investment was made, particularly when the plea is already there that the investment was made. With regards to amendment for incorporating age is concerned, that serves no purpose as it is mere technicality which does not have any material bearing on the rights of the parties and such correction, if required, can be applied for at any stage. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. 12. Subject to above, the revision is dismissed.