dixit C. J - (1.) THIS revision petition has come up before us on a reference made by Newaskar J., before whom it first came up for hearing. The question, which has been referred to us for decision, is- "Where a Civil Judge, Second Class having only limited power to try Small Cause suits tries a suit of Small Cause nature on the regular side without objection as to his jurisdiction by the defendant, is the decision a nullity when the suit could have been tried as a f mall Cause suit by another Court, namely the Court of Additional District Judge?" The learned single Judge thought it necessary to make this reference because of a conflict in the decisions of this Court in Mukund v. Firm Kashilal,. C. R. No. 178 of 1965 decided on 29th September, 1965. and Manakcha.nd v. Rajmal.. C. R. No. 377 of 1966 decided on 29th March, 1967. In Mukund"s case1 one of us (Sen J.) expressed the view that "if there exists a Court who has power to hear the suit under Small Cause Courts Act and if the suit is instituted in a civil Court that Court will have no jurisdiction to hear the suit of a small cause nature". In the case of Manakchand. C. R. No. 377 of 1966 decided on 29th March, 1967., Krishnan J. has held that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction if a Court, which is otherwise competent, tries a suit in breach of section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; and that if the point of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant in the Court below, he cannot be permitted to raise the objection for the first time in revision.
(2.) THE material facts are that the non-applicants filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Hatod, for recovery of Rs. 764.80 from the petitioner. THE value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary limit of suits which were cognizable by the Civil Judge as Court of Small Causes. THE learned Civil Judge tried the suit as an ordinary suit in his ordinary jurisdiction and gave to the plaintiffs a decree for Rs. 607-80 besides costs. THE defendant-applicant then filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Indore, contending that the Civil Judge, Second Class, had do jurisdiction to try the suit as an ordinary suit as the suit was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and when it was filed there already existed a Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction to try the suit as a small cause suit, namely, the Court of the Additional District Judge, Indore, empowered under section 9 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. THE learned appellate Judge dismissed the appeal relying on the decision of this Court in Manakchand v. RajmaP. He also reached the conclusion that the decision of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Hatod, was right on merits. THE defendant-appellant then filed this revision petition. The answer to the question placed before us for decision turns solely on the construction of section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That provision lays down that- "Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable." Section 16 is imperative in its terms. Its language is plain enough. That provision means that if a suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and if at the time of the institution of the suit there is a Small Cause Court having jurisdiction to try it, then the suit shall not be tried by any other Court having 1. C. R. No. 178 of 1965 decided on 29th September, 1965. 2. C. R. No. 377 of 1966 decided on 29th March, 1967. jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. It is only whe.. there is at the time of the institution of the suit no Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction to try the suit that a suit can be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction as an ordinary suit. Thus section 16 takes away jurisdiction of the regular Court to try a suit of small cause nature as an ordinary suit if there is at the time of the institution a Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction to try the suit as a small cause suit. The words "shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits ..." mean that a regular Court is incompetent to try a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes if at the time of the institution of the suit there is a Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction to try it. This is the view, which has been taken by both of us in two cases, namely, by Sen J. in Mukund v. Firm Kashilal,. C. R. No, 178 of 1965 Jdecided on 29th September, 1985. and by the Chief Justice in Stale v. Saudansingh 1968 MPLJ 147(M C C No. 27 of 1967 decided on 1st September, 1967.). This view is also supported by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Venkata Subbaraminahv. K. Hari Rao, AIR 1957 AP 133. and by other cases to svhich a reference will be made presently. Now, it is elementary that if a Court has no authority to decide a matter, then its decision thereon is a nullity. Further, it is now firmly settled by numerous authorities that an objection as to the Court's jurisdiction or authority to try a suit can be raised at any time if the defect of jurisdiction is admitted or proved or manifest. Where a Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit of a particular nature, neither the consent of the parties nor their failure to raise objection as to jurisdiction can give jurisdiction to that Court. In this connection, it would be sufficient to refer to Abdur Rahman v. Bharma Budhya. AIR 1927 Bom. 663 (2 ), Munnl. Board, Benares v. Shambhu Nath,. AIR 1928 All. 38. Ramasamy Chittiar v. R. G. Orr,. ILR 28 Mad 176. Nandlal v. Narayan. AIR 1920 Nag. 39. , Chockiah Thenar v. Shanmugasundaram.. AIR 1956 Mad. 610 at p 612. If, therefore, a suit is tried by a regular Court in contravention of section 16 of the Act, then even if no objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is taken during the trial that objection can be raised in an appeal from the final decision of the regular Court as also in a revision petition to this Court against the decision of the appellate Court.
(3.) SHRI Waghmare, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-opponents, however, urged that section 16 did not deprive the regular Courts altogether of jurisdiction in a suit congizable by a Court of Small Causes; and that if there was a Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction to try the suit, then section 16 merely prevented the regular Court from trying the suit as a small cause suit but did not prohibit the trial of the suit as an ordinary suit by the regular Court. It was said that if a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes was tried by a regular Court as an ordinary suit then the decision of the regular Court was not a nullity. This construction of section 16 cannot be accepted. The argument put forward by the learned counsel involves reading into section 16 words and expression which are not to be found therein. There is no justification whatsoever for reading the words "shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction" as meaning "shall not be 1. C. R. No, 178 of 1965 Jdecided on 29th September, 1985. 2. 1968 MPLJ 147(M C C No. 27 of 1967 decided on 1st September, 1967.) 3. AIR 1957 AP 133. 4. AIR 1927 Bom. 663 (2 ) 5. AIR 1928 All. 38. Ilr 28 Mad 176.;