- (1.) THIS was an application in revision filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The order sought to be revised was passed by the Small Cause Court Judge on 27 -3 -52 in a suit instituted in his Court on 16 -10 -51. The application was filed in the High Court on 14 -7 -52. The High Court admitted the application on 15 -12 -52, called for the record and ordered notice to issue to the other party.
(2.) AT the hearing of the application by Honble Srivastava J., a preliminary objection was raised and it was pointed out that S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act having been amended by U. P. Act 17 of 1957, the High Court was no longer possessed of any power to entertain the application in revision or to dispose it of. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court dated 18th November 1957 in Damodar Das v. Raghubir Saran, Civil Revn. No. 789 of 1950 (All). Reference was made in that decision to an earlier decision of a Division Bench dated 1st of November 1957 in New Singhal Dal Mill v. Firm Sheo Prasad Jainti Prasad, Civil Revn. No. 867 of 1957 : (AIR 1958 All 404) (A). It was urged that in view of S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as amended by U. P. Act 17 of 1957, the High Court must after 4 -6 -1957 return all applications pending before it for presentation to the Court of the District Judge. That was the order passed in Damodar Das v. Raghubir Saran, Civil Revn. No. 789 of 1950 (All) (B). In the earlier case of the New Singhal Dal Mill v. Firm Sheo Prasad Jainti Prasad, Civil Revn. No. 867 of 1957: (AIR 1958 All 404) (A), the application in revision had been filed after 4th of June, 1957 and the question how the applications filed before that date should be dealt with in view of the amendment of the section did not arise for decision. Certain observations were however made by the Division Bench which decided that case and those observations were utilised by the Single Judge who decided the later case in support of his view.
(3.) AS the question was of considerable importance and the decision on it was likely to affect a large number of litigants in the State, Srivastava J. thought that the case should be put up before Honble the Chief Justice so that a larger Bench may be constituted to consider the question: "In what way are applications in revision filed in this Court under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act prior to 4th of June, 1957 affected by the substitution of a new S. 25 for that section by the U. P. Act 17 of 1957?" ;