VIJAY CHAND Vs. GOPI CHAND
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-9-15
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 09,1952

VIJAY CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
GOPI CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sharma, J. - (1.)THIS is an application by the defendants to revise the order of the Munsif, Jaipur East, amending the plaint filed by the plaintiff opposite party.
(2.)IN the first instance, the relief claimed in the plaint was that a decree for the payment of Rs. 250/- with costs and interest be awarded against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, a Small Cause Court was created at Jaipur, and a general order was issued by the High Court on the 21st of January, 1952, that all suits of small cause nature pending in the courts of Munsifs, Jaipur City East and West, be transferred to the Court of Small Causes. The Judge, Small Cause Court, who was also appointed Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, was ordered to try such cases as regular suits. This order was communicated by the District Judge, Jaipur, to the two Munsifs by the order dated 5th February, 1952. On the 26th of February, 1952, the defendant objected that the Munsif East had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the suit. The plaintiff on that very day filed an application for amendment of the plaint and added a relief for fixation of proper rent. This application was objected to by the defendants on the ground that the Munsif East had no jurisdiction in the case, and, therefore, he could not allow the amendment. The Munsif, East, however, repelled the objection of the defendants, and allowed the amendment. Against this order, the defendants have come in revision to this Court.
The common ground between the parties is that a separate Small Cause Court was created in Jaipur City during the pendency of the suit, and that by its order dated the 21st of January, 1952, the High Court transferred all the suits of small cause nature from the courts of the two Munsifs (East and West, Jaipur City), to the Court of Judge, Small Causes. The parties also agree that the order was communicated to the two Munsifs on the 5th of February, 1952, by an order of the District Judge, Jaipur City. The only point of difference between the parties is that the present suit as originally instituted was not of the nature of the small causes. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the suit did not come] under any of the exceptions given in Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was, therefore, a suit of the nature of small causes, and was covered by the order of the High Court. After the order of transfer, the Munsif, East, had no jurisdiction in the suit, and he could not make any order of amendment after the transfer of the suit.

On behalf of the opposite party, it is argued that the suit was not of the nature of small causes, and that it came within the exception provided by Art. 7 of the Second Schedule of the Act.

I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. Art. 7 of the Second Schedule of the Act runs as follows: - "a suit for the assessment, enhancement, abatement or apportionment of rent of the immovable property. " I have, therefore, got to see whether the present suit as originally instituted could be said to be a suit for assessment, enhancement, abatement or apportionment of rent of the immovable property. The nature of the suit is primarily determined by the relief which is claimed in the suit as originally instituted. In the present suit the only relief claimed was for the recovery of Rs. 250/- with costs and interest. Evidently, it was a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of a shop, and, therefore, did not come under any of the exceptions provided in the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Learned counsel for the opposite party contends that under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, a landlord has a right to serve the tenant with a notice under sec. 11, if he wants to increase rent, and if exception is taken to any such notice, he has a right to bring a suit for increase in rent or standard rent in the lowest court of competent jurisdiction. It has been argued that such a notice was given to the tenants who did not raise any objection, and thereafter the suit was filed for the recovery of rent at enhanced rate claimed in the notice. It is urged that for awarding a decree for any! sum above Rs. 101/- which was the rent which the defendants were paying before the service of notice, the Court would have had to determine what was the standard rent, and this could not be done by the Small Cause Court, but could be done only by the regular court of lowest jurisdiction. It was the learned Munsif, East, who could do so, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was of the nature of small causes. This argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party does not appeal to the. As I have said above, the nature of the suit is primarily to be determined by the relief which is claimed. If the relief claimed is one which is not excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, the suit would be considered to be a suit of the nature of small causes. The jurisdiction of a court is to be determined by the allegations in the plaint, and not by any issues which might be framed by the Court. From the original point, it is quite clear that the only relief was for recovery of a certain amount of money, and there was no relief with respect to any declaration or fixation of rent. According to the original plaint, therefore, the suit could not be described as a suit of the nature other than that of a small cause suit. The suit, therefore, came within the order of transfer of the High Court and after that order the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to make any order in the case. His order of amendment was, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction.

The application is allowed, the order of amendment dated the 5th of May, 1952, is set aside, and the case is sent back for disposal in the light of the High Court order dated the 21st of January, 1951. The costs of this revision shall abide the result of the suit in the lower court. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.