MANMATHA NATH KOER Vs. MAHADEB GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter touches upon a question of some interest and importance to the public in the Rural Districts of Bengal. Under the Bengal Village Self-Government Act of 1919 provision was made for the setting up of judicial bodies, called Union Courts, by the Local Government at places where Union Boards are established. Section 73 of the Act reads as follows: Whenever a Union Board has been established for a union, the Local Government, may, by notification, appoint any two or more of the members of the Board to be a Union Court during their term of office as members of the Board, for the trial, in the whole or any part of the union, of all or any of the classes of civil suits specified in Section 74.

(2.) These are : (a) suits for money due on contracts; (b) suits for the recovery of moveable property or the value of such property and (c) suits for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring movable property, when the value of the suit does not exceed two hundred rupees. Then Section 74 also provides that, on the application of any defendant made in accordance with the provisions of Section 81, the Court of Small Causes or Court of the Munsif, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Union is situated (i) may withdraw the suit when its value does not exceed Rs. 25, (ii) shall withdraw the suit when its value exceeds Rs. 25, from a Union Court for trial by itself. Section 75 excludes certain classes of cases as not triable by a Union Court. It seems clear from the general provisions with regard to the procedure of these Courts, that the intention of the legislature was to set up in rural areas special tribunals for the expeditious, inexpensive and summary determination of civil disputes involving small amounts. There is, for example, a provision in Section 97 of the Act that the parties to suits triable by a Union Court may appear by an agent but the word "Agent" is narrowly defined, and in Sub-section 3, Section 97, it is expressly enacted that legal practitioners are not permitted to practice before a Union Court. This provision was no doubt intended to minimise the cost of litigation in these special Courts. Now Section 88 of the Act says: The decision of a Union Court in every suit shall be final as between the parties to the suit.

(3.) That provision standing by itself would indicate that the object of the legislature was to provide not only a cheap but a speedy and conclusive method of settling petty civil disputes cognizable by Union Courts. But Section 88 contains a proviso which apparently has the effect or is likely to have the effect of nullifying the advantage which would otherwise have accrued to persons litigating in the Union Courts. The proviso reads as follows: provided that the District Judge may, on the application of any party to the suit made within 30 days of the decree of the Union Court, cancel or modify the order of the Union Court or direct a retrial of the suit by the same or any other Union Court or by any other Court subordinate to him if he is satisfied that there has been failure of justice.