M P MEHROTRA Vs. S N MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second revision against the order of the lower revisional court whereby the said court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court on issue No. 1. The said issue read as follows: -

(2.) IT seems that the suit was instituted in the court of the Munsif City, Farrukhabad and subsequently it was transferred to the court of the Munsif, Havali, under the orders of the learned District Judge pre sumably under Section 24, C.P.C. All this took place before the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (Act No. 37 of 1972) came into force. By virtue of Section 9, the defendant questioned the ju risdiction of the court of the Munsif, Havali to try the suit. The aforesaid issue was framed in the suit and the trial court held that Section 9 of the said Act did not apply to suits which were not pend ing in the courts of institution but were pending in the transferee' courts on the date when the said Act came into existence, i.e., Sep tember 20, 1972. As the suit in question was pending before the Munsif, Havali as a transferee court on the said date, therefore, in the view of the said court Section 9 did not apply to the facts of the case. This view found favour with the District Judge also and I also feel that as phraseology of Section 9 stands, the courts below have taken the correct view. Section 9 reads as under: -

(3.) THEREFORE , section 9 was not attracted to the facts of the case. The District Judge was, however not right in thinking that the Munsif, Havali was to try the suit as a suit in the nature of Small Cause Court suit. If section 9 did not apply then, in my opinion, there is no pro vision which enabled the Munsif, Havali to whom the said had been transferred on his regular side to try the same in his small cause court jurisdiction; the suit would continue to be tried on the regular side of the Munsif, Havali.