KINDAN LAL Vs. UGGAR SINGH
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
Kapur, J. -
(1.) THIS is an application for revision against a decree passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Hissar, decreeing a sum of Rs. 250 in favour of the Plaintiff.
(2.) THE Plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 250 as rent for vacant land leased out to the Defendant. An objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Court, but the ground taken was that the suit was triable only by a revenue Court. That point was found against the Defendant and a revision has now been brought to this Court. Here the objection taken is that under Schedule II, Article 8, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, such a suit is not triable by a Small Cause Court. Article 8 is as follows:
A suit for the recovery of rent, other than house rent, unless the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested by the Provincial Government with authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto.
The contention raised is that the trying Judge was not specially authorised under Article 8 and therefore, the learned Small Cause Court Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This contention, in my opinion, is well -founded. I have made enquiries from the office and it appears that Mr. Jagan Nath Kapur was not specially authorised under Article 8, Small Cause Courts Act, and, therefore, a decree passed by him is without jurisdiction, and must be set aside. I, therefore, allow the petition and make the rule absolute, but as no objection in this form was taken before the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, the parties will bear their own costs in this Court and in the Courts below.
(3.) I also direct that this suit be sent back for trial to the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, to try it himself or to send it to such other Subordinate Judge that he nominates for the purpose. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge on 6 -11 -1950.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.