RAM KUMAR JAIN Vs. IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PRATAPGARH
LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-286
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 10,2013

RAM KUMAR JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
Iiird Addl. District Judge, Pratapgarh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
(2.) This is landlord's writ petition. He filed suit for eviction against tenant respondent no.2 in the year 1976. Both, the original landlord petitioner and tenant respondent no.2 are dead and have been substituted by their legal representatives. There was some confusion regarding power of J.S.C.C. in the district in question i.e. Pratapgarh hence suit was initially filed before the District Judge as S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 1976. The learned District Judge transferred the suit to the court of Munsif, Kunda. Thereafter the suit was transferred to the court of IInd Additional Munsif, Pratpagrah. IInd Additional Munsif, Pratapgarh decreed the suit on 27.9.1986. In the judgment the suit is described as Original Suit No. 39 of 1976 Ram Kumar Jain v. Ram Chandra . The suit was decreed for eviction and for payment of arrears of rent since September, 1986 till eviction at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month. Against the said judgment and decree defendant respondent filed SCC Revision No. 113 of 1986 Ram Chandra v. Ram Kumar Jain . IInd Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh taking a highly technical view of the matter allowed the revision through judgment and decree dated 16.2.1990, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial court with the direction that it shall return the plaint to the plaintiff who shall file the same in the court of Munsif, Kunda which is small causes court for the purposes of this case. The said judgment and decree passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Pratapgrah dated 16.2.1990 has been challenged through this writ petition.
(3.) The revisional court held that neither the court of Second Additional, Munsif, Pratapgrah had jurisdiction to hear S.C.C. Suits nor it heard and decided the suit as J.S.C.C. The view of the lower revisional court is patently erroneous in law. Firstly, under Section 24 (4) C.P.C. it is provided that the court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.;


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