M RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. RAMASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under, Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts act, to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, who dismissed the plaintiff's claim in S. C. S. No. 81 of 1954.

(2.) THE suit was laid against the defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by them. The plaintiff claimed that neither of the defendants was an agriculturist.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned. Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit, even if the institution of the suit was in contravention of the statutory ban Imposed by section 3 of Act V of 1954. It is true there was no provision in Act V of 1954 analogous to Section 3 (2) of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists Repayment of debts Act, I of 1955. Nonetheless, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that where a suit was instituted in contravention of Section 3 of Act V of 1954, the Court in which such a suit was instituted had no option but to keep it pending, and it was not liable to be dismissed. A claim which contravened an express statutory provision could only be dismissed. That the express statutory provision in this case was really one governing the procedure made no difference to the principle to apply. For example a claim barred by the law of limitation can only be dismissed. It is true there is specific provision for it in the Limitation Act. Section 3 of Act V of 1954 by its own force necessitates the dismissal of a suit, if contravention of Section 3 is established.