LAWS(KAR)-1973-6-38

MAHABOOB SAHEB Vs. V ANJANEYULU

Decided On June 29, 1973
MAHABOOB SAHEB Appellant
V/S
V.ANJANEYULU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under S.18 of the Mysore Small Cause Courts Act, 1964, against the judgment and decree dt."l8-ll-1972 in SC. No. 162/1972 passed by 'the Principal Munsiff, Bellary. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 393 towards principal and interest due on account of the business carried on by the plaintiff with the defendant on 14-2-1972. The order sheet dt. 18-11-1972 reads as follows : Plaintiff by Sri M.S. Defendant Ex parte. For further proceedings. From the evidence and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 prima fade case is made out. Hence, the suit is decreed for Rs.360 being the prin- cipal and interest at 12 per cent per annum from 26-8-1972 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at 6 per cent p.a. till the date of realisation ex-parte decree signed.

(2.) This revision petition was heard on 9-4-1973 on which date Mr. S. G. Bhagavan, learned Counsel forr petitioner, was absent and the revision petition was dismissed. The learned Counsel for petitioner has filed an application I.A.No.II praying that the order passed on 9-4-1973 may be set aside and the revision petition be re-heard for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Facts accompanying the application. Mr.T.S. Ramaehandra, learned Counsel for respondent, has no objection, in view of the facts stated therein, for the order which has already been passed being set aside and the case being re-heard. The decision in D. V. Shindagi y. Saraswathibai (1968) 2 Mys.L.J.200. relied on by the petitioner also supports his contention Accordingly, the order dt.9-4-1973 is set aside.The learned Counsel were heard again. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the lower Court is not in compliance with Or.20, R.4 CPC and that since it is not according to law, it is liable to be interfered with under S.18 of the Small Cause Courts Act. Next, he relied on an unreported decision of this Court in CRP.No.H97/1965 CRP.1197/65. decided on 21-2-1967. In that case four points were set down by the learned Munsiff for his determination. His findings were in the following terms : Point No.1-In the affirmative. Point No.2-In the affirmative. Point No.3-1st part in the negative; 2nd part does not arise. Point No.4-In the negative.

(3.) Accordingly the learned Munsiff passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, which was challenged in the revision petition. This Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case for fresh disposal and observed as follows : From a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case, I must say that the decision of the learned Munsiff is too cryptic and not intelligible. The provisions of Or.20, R.4(l) CPC must be read consistently with the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Mysore Small Cause Courts Act. This is the way in which the provision has been read in the several decisions that I have referred to above. Under S.18 of the Small Cause Courts Act, the High Court has been invested with the powers to call for the records of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order made by the Court of Small Causes is in accordance with law. To enable the High Court to do so, it is necessary that the Small Cause Court should ordinarily support its decision by reasons so that the revisional Court as also the parties interested in the case may satisfy themselves that the decision is in accordance with law. It may be that in simple cases where the contest is not of a complicated character the provisions of Or.20, R.4(l) permit the decision being given without the reasons in support of the decision being set out. The test as to whether it is , necessary for the Small Cause Court to set out the reasons for its decision is whether it is intelligible or not. It appears to be immaterial whether the question involved is one of fact or one of law. In either case the decision of the Small Cause Court must be intelligible on the face of it. In many cases it may be necessary that reasons should be set out in support of the decision of the Small Cause Court. It must also be noted that ordinarily the decision of a Court must be supported by reasons. Or.20,R.4(l) is only an exception. As mentioned already it does not say that the Small Cause Court shall not give reasons but only need not give reasons. It implies that ordinarily reasons should be given. Applying those principles, it is necessary to set aside the judgment of the trial Court."