PERUMAL AND ORS. Vs. PERUMAL REDDIAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises for decision in this civil revision petition is whether the suit is excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts because the claim falls under Article 35(ii), Schedule II of the Act which runs as follows:

(2.) THOUGH a number of decisions were cited before me by both the learned advocates for the petitioners and respondents, in every decision the learned Judges make it clear that whether a suit does or does not fall within the Articles is prima facie a matter to be decided upon the language of the plaint. See the decisions in Sakhya v. Sadashiv, A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 361, Bhan Dat v. : AIR1932All472 and Deoki Rai v. Harakh Narain Lal, I.L.R. (1926) All. 85. I have been taken through the plaint and on a fair and ordinary consideration of the plaint it appears to me that the present suit does not fall within that Article. I cannot say that on a fair reading of the plaint it discloses the commission of criminal offence by the defendants. The material paragraph is the fourth in which it is alleged that on 1st March, 1945, the plaintiff gathered the tamarind from certain trees and tried to collect the same, but the defendants joined together and unlawfully took away the tamarind thus causing loss to the plaintiff. The learned advocate for the petitioners wants me to hold on this language that the plaintiff alleges the commission of theft by the defendants, as if the plaintiff had said that the defendants with the dishonest intention of causing unlawful gain to themselves and less to the plaintiff took away the tamarind. On the other hand, what I find in the plaint is that the defendants took away the tamarind and thus caused loss to the plaintiff. The language in some of the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners, is not identical with the language used in the plaint in this case. I agree with the learned District Munsiff that the case does not fall within Article 35(ii) of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(3.) IN the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.