- (1.) D. K. Seth,, J. Suit No. 1040 of 1969 for recovery of Rs. 1361/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt was filed on 22-8- 1969 before the Munsif, Deoria on the regular side. Originally the suit valued at Rs, l. 000/- or below were cognizable by the Small Causes Court, but by the subsequent amendment the said valuation was en hanced to Rs. 2000/. Thereupon, the defendant took an objection that the suit was not cognizable by the learned Munsif on regular side, and the suit be tried by the Judge, Small pluses Court, who has been conferred the power to try the suit cog nizable by Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, when the suit filed, the suits valued upto Rs. WOO/- were cog nizable by the Small Causes Courts, there fore, on the date of filing of the suit, the learned Munsif had jurisdiction to try the same on the regular use. The subsequent amendment, if not retrospective, it cannot apply to the pending suits unless provision was made for the pending suits that it should be transferred to other Courts. The learned Munsif had held he had jurisdic tion to try the suit vide his order dated 17-2-1979 passed in Original Suit No. 1040 of 1969, against which civil revision No. 87 of 1979 was preferred and by order dated 11-4-1980 the Additional District Judge, Illrd Court, Deoria dismissed the said revision and affirmed the order of the learned Munsif Avhich in my view has been correctly done for the reasons following. Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, empowers the State Government to confer upon any subordinate Judge or Munsif the jurisdic tion of the Judge of Small Causes under the provisions of Small Causes Courts Act through notification in the official gazette for the trials cognizable by such Courts up to such value not exceeding Rs. 1000/- in the case of subordinate Judge or Rs. 250/-in the case of Munsif as it thinks fit. This limitation of pecuniary jurisdiction was amended from time to time. Ultimately, through U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976, it was extended upto Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively after the initial limitation was amended earlier to Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respec tively through the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970. In the exercise of such power, the Government of U. P. had from time to time conferred on the Mun-sifs and Subordinate Judges the jurisdic tion of Judge of Small Causes Court and also extended the limit of pecuniary juris diction from time to time. Admittedly, the extent of jurisdiction of Small Causes Court at Deoria was Rs. 1000/- on 22- 8-69. It was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- by virtue of said U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amend ment) Act 1976. On the basis of such amendment the suit which was being tried by the learned Munsif since the valuation of the suit exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on Small Causes Court on the date of its in stitution, it was contended that after the said amendment, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court having been enhanced and the suit being valued less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, it is hit by the mischief of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act which prohibits trials of a suit cognizable by Small Causes Court within the local limits of such Court.
(3.) SECTION 9 of the Civil Procedure Code also provides that unless expressly or impliedly the cognizance of particular kind of suit of civil nature is excepted, the civil court has jurisdiction to try such suits. Admittedly, SECTION 16, excepts trial of a suit cognizable by the Small Causes Court by a Civil Court. In the present case, when the suit was instituted it was not a suit cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court and therefore was not hit by Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when it was instituted having not been barred, the Civil Court had jurisdic tion to try the same. It is only because of subsequent enhancement of the valuation, the present question has cropped up.;