ANIRUDH KUMAR Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this revision to Division Bench because he felt that an important question of law of some difficulty, which may be of frequent occurrence, has arisen. The applicant obtained a decree for Rs. 40/ - against the opposite party as price of sale of certain goods. In execution, the judgment -debtor raised an objection that the decree was a nullity. He alleged that the suit was triable exclusively by the Nyaya Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act, and the Judge Small Cause Court, who passed the decree, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The execution court upheld this objection and rejected the execution application. The decree holder went up in revision, but the learned District Judge, Meerut, dismissed it. He affirmed the finding that the decree was without jurisdiction.

(2.) A suit for recovery of money as price of sale of goods is covered by cl. (a) of S. 64(1) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act. So a Nyaya Panchayat could take cognizance of this case. In view of S. 55 of the said Act no court could take cognizance of any case triable by a Nyaya Panchayat. Apparently the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat and hence the court of Judge Small Causes could not take its cognizance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant referred to S. 1(2) under which the Panchayat Raj Act does not extend to Municipal area, notified area or Cantonment or town areas. He then referred to S. 51(2) of the Act which says: