V.G. Oak,J. - (1.) This special appeal arises out of proceedings before a Nyaya Panchayat. Jugul Kishore brought a money claim based on a promissory note against Budha. The case was disposed of by a Nyaya Panchayat in district Hardoi. The Plaintiff's claim was decreed. A revision filed by Budha Defendant was dismissed by the Munsif East, Hardoi. A writ petition filed by Budha was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Budha has, therefore, come up in special appeal.
(2.) The sole point urged before us is that a Nyaya Panchayat in Uttar Pradesh has no jurisdiction to try a money claim based on a promissory note. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Raj Kumar Singh v/s. Mahant, 1964 AWR 407. In that case it was held by Manchanda, J. that a Nyaya Panchayat has no jurisdiction to try a civil case for money based on a promissory note. That decision no doubt lends support to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. But, in our opinion, Raj Kumar Singh's (1) case has not been correctly decided.
(3.) The Learned Counsel relies upon entries Nos. 46 and 95 of List I and entry No. 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Entry No. 46 of List I is: Bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes and other like instruments. Entry No. 95 of List I is: Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this list; admiralty jurisdiction. Entry No. 65 of List II is: Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in this List. Relying on these three entries in the two Lists, the Learned Counsel urged that courts established by Uttar Pradesh Legislature are not competent to deal with suits touching promissory notes.;