BASANT LAL AND SONS Vs. SURYA KANT POORAN MAL
LAWS(ALL)-1965-8-20
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 11,1965

BASANT LAL AND SONS Appellant
VERSUS
SURYA KANT POORAN MAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAYA RAM V. SANT RAM [REFERRED TO]
DIWAN SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.S.Mathur, J. - (1.)THIS is a revision under Section 115, C, P. C. by M/s. Basant Lal Mittal and Sons, plaintiffs, against the order of the Additional District Judge of Agra allowing the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of M/s. Surya Kant Pooran Mal and another, defendants, and thereby decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 11.41 paisas only. The Judge Small Cause Court had decreed the suit for Rs. 619- 9-3 on the ground that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the sale price as agreed upon. The Additional District Judge took a contrary view holding that the ex-factory price as fixed under the Government Order was applicable and the plaintiffs could not claim sale consideration at that rate. THIS is why the amount of the decree was reduced to Rs. 11.41 paisas.
(2.)IT was first of all contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and, consequently the order under revision deserves to be set aside and the revision under Section 25 remanded for a fresh hearing by the District Judge. This contention was repelled by me in the case of Maya Ram v. Sant Ram. 1964 All LJ 998. In other case also a request was made for reconsideration on the ground that the effect of Section 40 of the Bengal. Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act had not been considered. None of these cases were marked A. F. R. simply because it was not necessary to increase the number of A. F. R. cases on account of a new point being raised a point which did not appeal to the Court to have any importance. To make this judgment complete I shall refer to the scope and effect of Section 40 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act.
Sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the above Act provides that this section and also a few other sections of the Act apply to Courts of Small Causes constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Sub-section (2) further clarifies that the other sections of this Act do not apply to these Courts, i.e., Courts of Small Causes constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The words "Courts of Small Causes constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887" are of great significance and make it clear that Section 40 applies to such Courts and not to others. The Court of the District Judge or of the Additional District Judge is not a Court of Small Causes and it is also not a Court constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act are those which are constituted under Section 5 of that Act. In other words, therefore, all the provisions of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act shall apply to the Courts of the District Judge and of the Additional District Judge while entertaining revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and such revisions can also be transferred to the Additional District Judge for hearing.

Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as amended under the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, gives power to the District Judge including an Additional District Judge to exercise the revisional jurisdiction where the decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, is not according to law. Where the finding of fact recorded is perverse, it shall become a question of law and the District Judge can set aside such a decision of the Judge. Small Cause Court.

(3.)IN the instant case the interpretation of the agreement was, in substance, not in issue. The document is so clear and unambiguous that it could not be given more than one meaning. It is the application of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1955, and the Government Order issued thereunder which have the effect of disallowing the plaintiffs the price contracted upon.
Under the agreement the price ex-factory of the Sugar sold was Rs. 36-14-0 per maund. The actual words used are "price ex factory" which would mean nothing else than ex-factory price. The agreement was subject to Government restrictions, and consequently, if the Government fixed ex-factory price and the price so fixed was applicable to a dealer like the plaintiffs also, the ex-factory price payable shall stand reduced accordingly and the plaintiffs shall not be able to recover the price of goods sold at the contractual rate.

;


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