LAWS(ALL)-1972-12-31

GANGA SINGH Vs. DHARAM PAL

Decided On December 21, 1972
GANGA SINGH Appellant
V/S
DHARAM PAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the appellate order arising out of a suit originally filed before a Nyaya Panchayat. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 500/ - from the Plaintiff. The Nyaya Panchayat decreed the suit. Against that a revision was filed and the Munsif Etah by his order dated 16 -11 -1968 allowed the revision and transferred the case from Nyaya Panchayat Songra to the court of Addl. Munsif, Etah, for disposal according to law. Subsequently, he himself being the Munsif Etah tried the suit. The learned Munsif held that the Plaintiff had failed to prove its case and the 'Bahi' which he had relied upon was a document manufactured only for the purposes of the case. He, accordingly, dismissed the Plaintiff's suit and directed a notice to issue to the Plaintiff to show cause as to why he be not prosecuted for producing Bahi in evidence knowing that to be false and fabricated. Against this decree and the order of the Munsif the Plaintiff filed an appeal. Appeal was, also dismissed. Now the Plaintiff has come up in revision.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Applicant contended that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to decide he suit as an original suit after taking evidence in the matter. He further contended that the order directing the issue of notice to the Plaintiff to show cause as to why he be not prosecuted is not expedient in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel then contended that the appeal was not maintainable as the decree had been passed by the Munsif as persona designate and not as a court. In the case of Tika Ram v. Naubat, 1970 AWR 237 a Division Bench of this Court has held that to Section 89 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act the Munsif while trying a suit acts as a civil court and the order finally passed by him is a decree appealable within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence appealable. The decree passed in appeal has not been shown to suffer from any error of jurisdiction so as to make it amenable to consideration on merits in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.