VIJAY PRATAP Vs. VITH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Miss. Rama Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Sri Ravi Kant for respondent No. 3

(2.) The petitioners-landlord, aggrieved by an order dated 28th March, 1,997, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'IV' to the writ petition, passed by the trial court directing the return of the plaint for presentation before the regular civil court, as the suit in question is cognizable by regular civil court and not by Court of Small Causes, approached the revisional court by means of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The revisional court vide its order dated 16th July, 1998, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'V' to the writ petition, maintained the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners-landlord. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The trial court relying upon the decision in Jyoti Ram v. District Judge, Saharanpur and Anr., 1995 (1) ARC 195, held that the suit is entertainable by regular civil court and not by Judge small causes court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-landlord submitted that in view of the provision of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which is reproduced below, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court of small causes by which the suit is triable : "16. Exclusive Jurisdiction of courts of small causes.--Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a court of small causes shall not be tried by any other court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court of small causes by which the suit is triable."