DHANIRAM BABULAL Vs. GIRZA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in a Small Cause suit have come up in revision aggrieved by an order of the trial Court rejecting their application Under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE plaintiff/non-petitioners have filed a simple suit for recovery of rent in arrrears for a period of eighteen and half months between 13-1-1986 and 27-7-1987 alleging that the defendants were the tenant of one Leelabai who had alienated the suit property to the plaintiffs under a registe Red deed of sale dated 13-1-1986. One of the pleas raised in the written statement filed by the defendant/petitioners was that Lilabai had entered into a contract for sale of the suit property in favour of one Babula) on 12-9-1985 and had also delivered possession of the property to said Babulal in part performance of the contract. The defendants further pleaded that since 12-9-1985 they were holding the premises as tenants of Babulal, who had also filed a suit for specific performance of the contract in his favour and the plaintiffs having purchased the property with notice of contract in favour of Babulal, they did not acquire any title in the suit property. In the background of these pleadings the defendants claimed that the Small Cause Court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaint was liable to be returned for presentation to a proper Court having jurisdiction to try the question of title.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the revision deserved to be dismissed. Section 23 (1) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, on which strong reliance has been placed by Shri Ramji Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as under :