Sankar Prasad Mitra, CJ. - (1.) The question that arises in this Reference is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit on a Negotiable Instrument which has been instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of a sum below Rs. 5,000/- in view of the provisions of the Calcutta City Civil Court Act, 1953.
(2.) In Suit No. 1459 of 1966 (Cal), (Kamalabala Mahapatra v. Golam Khan). Mr. Justice Ghose has held that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure when the value of the suit is below Rs. 5,000/-. This decision was given on 7-12-1971.
(3.) The present suit being Suit No. 173 of 1973, (Prayag Deb Ganguli v. Sm. Rama Roy) is a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,235/-. It came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury on 19th September, 1973. Mr. Justice Roy Chowdhury was inclined to pass a decree but in view of the earlier decision of Mr. Justice Ghose he has referred the matter to a larger Bench. Mr. Justice Roy Chowdhury has relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, for the purpose of making this Reference. The observations are as follows :-- "If one Division Bench of a High Court is unable to distinguish a previous decision of another Division Bench, and holding the view that the earlier decision is wrong itself gives effect to that view the result would be utter confusion. The position would be equally bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decision of another single Judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench In such a case lawyers would not know how to advise their clients and all Courts subordinate to the High Court would find themselves in an embarrassing position of having to choose between dissentient judgments of their own High Court.";