KHACHERU SINGH Vs. BANARSI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the Plaintiff is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the Second Civil Judge, Meerut dismissing his suit.

(2.) IT appears that the Applicant filed a suit against the opposite party in the Nyaya Panchayat for recovery of Rs. 300/ - with interest at the rate of 2% per month from him. The opposite party contested the suit and denied the taking of the loan in question. The Nyaya Panchayat decreed the suit. Thereupon the opposite party preferred a revision to the Munsif Haveli. The Munsif Haveli set aside the decree of the Nyaya Panchayat and transferred the case for disposal to the Second Additional Munsif. The learned Second Additional Munsif decreed the suit. The opposite party went up in appeal to the lower appellate court with the result stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) NOW Section 89(1) invests the Munsif with the power to call for the record of any case which has been decided by a Nyaya Panchayat and if it appears to him, that injustice or material irregularity has occurred he may make such order as he thinks fit. Section 89(2) then gives the Munsif the power to quash the decree or order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat and to remand the case to it for retrial or try the case himself or transfer, it to another court or officer competent to try it. In the instant case the learned Munsif Haveli after quashing the decree of the Nyaya Panchayat, transferred the case to the court of the 2nd Additional Munsif. The question that arises for determination therefore is whether the latter court can be held to be a court competent to try the suit, for if not, it would have no jurisdiction to do so. As the present suit is indisputably of a Small Cause Court nature, the first thing to be seen is whether the 2nd Additional Munsif could try a suit of that nature and valuation. As there was nothing on the record to show whether Sri Shashi Bhushan Sinha, the 2nd Additional Munsif, who decided this case had Small Cause Court powers of the requisite pecuniary extent, I called for a report from the office on both those points. The report of the office shows that in December, 1964 when Sri Shashi Bushan Sinha, decided this case, he had Small Cause Court powers upto the pecuniary extent of Rs. 100/ - only. It is, therefore, clear that he was not an officer and his court was not a court, competent to try a suit of a Small Cause Court nature of a pecuniary valuation exceeding Rs. 100/ - . Sri Shashi Bhushan Sinha therefore had no jurisdiction to try the suit to question. I am fortified in my view by the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Karimullah v. Sri Ram and Peary, 1964 AWR 441. Although the facts of that case are converse to those of the present case, the rules laid down therein applies with full force to this case as well. In that case the Munsif after recalling the case, which was based on a pronote and receipt and was for the recovery of Rs. 456.25 from the Nyaya Panchayat transferred it for disposal to the Civil Judge who was empowered to try suits of Small Cause Court nature upto Rs. 500/ - . The Civil Judge returned the suit to the Munsif holding that he had no jurisdiction to transfer it for trial to him. The learned Munsif again sent that suit to him and when he again refused to try it, the former referred the matter to this Court. this Court held that,