P V VENKATARAMA SETTY Vs. G VENKATARAMANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 222 of 1980 on the file of the Munsiff, Gowribidanur. That was a suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 1,600/- from the defendant on the basis of a pronote dated 3-2-1974. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree preferred R.A. No. 13 of 1986 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chickballapur. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the endorsement dated 16-1-1977 found on Ex. P-3 that therefore the suit was barred by time and hence he set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. The plaintiff being aggrieved by this Judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The only point that was canvassed on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the suit being one for recovery of the amount due on the basis of a pronote executed by the defendant, it is of the nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and the value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- and therefore the appeal to the learned Civil Judge could lie only on a question of law as provided by Section 96(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. This sub-section was incorporated by Section 33 of Act No. 104 of 1976. It reads as hereunder :

(3.) The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent is without any substance for more than one reason. If the pecuniaryjurisdiction prescribed by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act is also to be taken note of for determining the meaning of the above said phrase, occurring in Section 96(4), there was no further necessity to introduce in the said section the further portion. "When the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand." Further it is undisputed that no appeal lies against the Judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes except as provided by Section 17 thereof and Section 18 provides for a revision against the decree or order of Court of Small Causes and Section 19 enjoins that save as provided by these provisions, the decree or order made under the provisions of this Act by the Court of Small Causes shall be final. If we have to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent, it would amount to providing for an appeal against the Judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes on a question of law under Section 96(4) of CPC. This would run practically contra to the mandate of Section 19 of the Court of Small Causes Courts Act.