- (1.) K. C. Agarwal, J. Finding a conflict between Sudarshan Pal Singh v. 2nd Addl. District Judge (1980 (UP) RCC 379) and Smt. Kamini Khare v. Ram Naresh (1979) 5 All LR 547) : (1979 All LJ 1263) Hon. N. D. OJha, J. , has referred this case for decision by a larger Bench.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by a tenant against an order of the Additional District Judge refusing to admit additional evidence in the revision filed before him under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to take evidence in revision. For deciding the point referred, it is necessary to point out the scope of powers conferred by S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The provincial Small Cause Courts Act had been enacted in 1887 with a view to obtain speedy and cheap justice, and early decision in small causes. Section 5 of that Act conferred power on the State Government to establish Courts of Small Causes at any place within the territories under its administration. In deciding a suit, the Small Cause Court is required by Section 17 of the Act to follow the procedure prescribed in the Civil P. C. save in so far as otherwise provided by that code or by this Act. Sec. 7 and Order 50 of the Civil P. C. are relevant in this regard. Whereas Section 7 mentions some of the provisions of the Code which would not be applicable to the Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, O. 50 gives the list of various Orders and Rules which would not apply to it. Amongst the Orders not extended to the Courts under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, one of them is Order XII. In fact the Provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and that of the Civil P. C. are supplementary to each other. Order XII Rule 27 of the Civil P. C. confers right on a Court of appeal to admit additional evidence. But, since that Order has expressly been excluded from application to Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, neither Order 41 Rule 27 in terms nor in principle can be applied for taking additional evidence. So far as a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is concerned, the Court has a much narrower power than that of the first appellate court. Under Section 25, the Court can interfere only when the decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was act according to law. Order 41 R. 27 cannot, therefore, be pressed into service for admitting additional evidence in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
(3.) THE question that next arises is whether additional evidence can be admitted in a case under S. 25 by a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Section 17, as observed above, requires the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure to be followed in all suits and in all proceedings pending out of such suits. Section 151 is not one of the provisions mentioned in the list excluded from application to the Courts constituted under the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Hence, S. 151, since it has not been excluded, applies, which preserves the inherent powers of the Court. Every Court is constituted for the purpose of doing justice according to law and must, therefore, be deemed to possess as a necessary corollary, and has inherent in its very constitution, all such powers as may be necessary to do the right and undo the wrongs in the course of the administration of justice (1856-6 Moo Ind App 393) (PC ). In fact, Section 151 does not confer but only saves the inherent jurisdiction In N. S. Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1976 SC 1152), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the nature and scope of inherent powers of the Court. In doing so, it referred to the following passage with approval; "the inherent power has its roots in necessity and its breadth is co-extensive with the necessity". (See Theoretical Basis of Inherent Powers Doctrine - Text import prepared by Jim or Carrigan - Publication of National College of the State of Judiciary U. S. A. ).;