ALAMCHAND BIRUMAL Vs. MOTILAL BALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has come up for disposal before us on a reference by our learned brother Bhargava J. before whom it first came up for hearing. The learned single Judge felt that the question raised in the revision petition was of considerable importance, and the decision of this Court in Ramkaran v. Shankarro, 1969 MPLJ 905 required reconsideration, and, therefore, the revision petition should be heard by a Division Bench rather than by him sitting singly.

(2.) THE material facts are that on 29th September 1958 the petitioner-firm instituted a suit against the non-applicant for recovery of Rs. 731-14-0 in the court of Munsiff, Satna. At the time of the institution of the suit, there was no court in the area invested with the power of a Court of Small Causes competent to try the suit. On 1st January 1959 the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), came into force. Under Section 25 of the Act, the Munsiff Court at Satna became a Court of Civil Judge. Class-II. On 1st January 1959. this Court issued a notification, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of the Act, investing all courts of the Additional District Judges with the powers of a Court of Small Causes under the law for the time being in force for the trial of suits cognizable by such courts and not exceeding Rs. 1,000 in value arising with the local limits of the iurisdiction of such courts. After the coming into force of the Act. the trial of the petitioner's suit as an ordinary suit was continued in the court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Satna.

(3.) WHEN the trial of the suit was about to complete, the defendant raised the objection that as the suit was of small cause nature and the Additional District judge, Satna, had been invested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes, the court of Civil Judge, Second Class, Satna, had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This objection prevailed with the learned Civil Judge, who made an order on 5th february 1962 returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The petitioner then appealed to the Additional District Judge, Satna, against the order of the Civil Judge returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal taking the view that the plaintiff's suit stood automatically transferred to the Court of Additional District judge under Section 27 of the Act. Hence this revision petition by the plaintiff.