- (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge rejecting an application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in Original Suit No. 81 of 1974. The said suit was a suit for the eviction of the tenant by the landlord after determining the former's tenancy. Arrears of rent and damages etc. were also claimed in the suit. The court below rejected the application on the ground that there was no compliance with the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and, therefore, the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in a suit for eviction Section 17 of the said Act will not get attracted. In my opinion, this contention has no force. Section 17 (1) reads as follows :- "17. (1) The procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act, the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes in all. suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits : Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of judgment, or give, such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed." In my opinion, there is nothing to show that it is only the money decree which will stand covered under the said proviso. In any case, in the facts of the suit in question the decree was for arrears of rent also and that part of the decree even on the basis of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant would be covered by the said proviso. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel that the court below was wrong in holding that Section 17 was attracted to the facts of the case is not correct.
(2.) THE next contention is that the court below i.e., the 4th Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the valuation of the suit was admittedly more than Rs. 5,000. The suit was filed in the court of the District Judge, Allahabad who transferred it to the court of the 4th Additional District Judge and the 4th Additional District Judge passed the ex parte decree. Counsel has in this connection drawn attention to Section 15 (3) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which after its amendment at present lays down that in respect of suits between lessor arid lessee in respect of building the State Government may direct that such suits up to the value of Rs. 5,000 shall be cognizable by a court of Small Causes. Section 16 of the same Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the court of Small Causes to try the suits which are cognizable by it. Hence it is contended that the District Judge or the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question.
(3.) It is necessary to set out the changes which have been effected in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and in Article 4 of the Second Schedule of the said Act and in Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. Section 15 before the amendment effected by the Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1968 stood as under :- "15 (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. (3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order." ;