APPALANARASIMHAM PATRUDU Vs. MUTYALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Surya Rao on behalf oPthe petitioner raised an interesting question of law which turns upon the construction of Sec. 16, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which runs as follows :

(2.) In order to appreciate his contention, ii is necessary to set out only a few facts. The suit was instituted by the respondents herein on 26-2-1954 for recovery of a sum of Rs 1033-12-9 in the court of the District Munsif of Yisakhapatnam. A notification was issued subsequently by the High Court under Sec. 28 of the Madras Civil Courts Act in 1954 in the following terms :

(3.) When the suit was taken up for trial in July, 1955 the petitioner here in raised an objection that under the mandatory terms of section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the suit should not be tried by the District Munsif and that the plaint should be returned to the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. Without applying his mind to the terms of Sec. 16 of the Act, the District Munsif over-ruled the objection raised by the petitioner herein. He took the view that the objection ought to have been raised in the written statement. He over-looked that the objection could not be taken by the defendant in the original written statement as the Notification was issued only later. The section is quite clear that a suit cognizable by the court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other court. As the subordinate Judge was invested with jurisdiction to try the suit on the small cause side, the District Munsif had no further jurisdiction to proceed with the suit though it was rightly instituted before him.