ESTHAPPAN Vs. MATHAI ANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 58 of 1124 on the file of the District Munsiffs Court at Meenachil. The claim in the suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60/- from the defendants, stated to be the value of 150 leaves alleged to have been cut and removed by the defendants from the Palmyrah trees belonging to the plaintiff. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the lower Court found that it was not proved that the defendants had cut and removed the 150 leaves as alleged by the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. It is this decision that is sought to be revised.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents defendants a preliminary objection has been raised that this revision petition is unsustainable because the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) as amended by Act II of 1951, cannot be invoked in this case, in view of the special provision contained in S. 7 of the Code. The Indian Code (Act V of 1908) was made applicable to this State also with effect from 1.4.1951 and hence the provisions of that Code have undoubtedly to govern this revision petition which was filed on 10.1.1952. It is S.115 of the Code which confers jurisdiction on the High Court to revise decrees passed by the subordinate Courts in cases where such decrees are not appealable. S.7 of the Code expressly states that certain provisions of the Code as specified in the section shall not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887) or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. One such provision specified in S.7 of the Code is that contained in S.115. S.7 as amended by Act II of 1951 reads as follows:-

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner argues that the expression Courts in Part B States exercising a corresponding jurisdiction used in S.7 of the Code would indicate that it refers only to small cause courts in such States and that since the decree in the present case was not passed by such a court, the jurisdiction to revise the decree under S.115 of the Code cannot be said to be ousted by S.7. In support of this contention reliance is also placed on the classification of Civil Courts as made in S.4 of the Travancore - Cochin Civil Courts Act (Act XXII of 1951). That Section states that:-