JAGANNATH BHERAJI Vs. HARISINGH KISHANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has come up before us on a reference made by Newaskar j. , before whom it first came up for hearing. The question, which has been referred to us for decision, is-

(2.) THE material facts are that the non-applicants filed a suit in the Court of the civil Judge, Second Class. Hatod, for recovery of Rs. 764. 80 from the petitioner. The value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary limit of suits which were cognizable by the Civil Judge as Court of Small Causes. The learned Civil Judge tried the suit as an ordinary suit in his ordinary jurisdiction and gave to the plaintiffs a decree for Rs. 697. 80 besides costs. The defendant-applicant then filed an appeal in the court of the Additional District Judge, Indore, contending that the Civil Judge, second Class, had no jurisdiction to try the suit as an ordinary suit as the suit was cognizable by a court of Small Causes and when it was filed there already existed a Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction to try the suit as a small cause suit, namely, the Court of the Additional District Judge, Indore, empowered under section 9 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. The learned appellate Judge dismissed the appeal relying on the decision of this Court in CR No. 377 of 1966 d/- 29-3-1967 (MP) (supra ). He also reached the conclusion that the decision of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Hatod, was right on merits. The defendant appellant then filed this revision petition.

(3.) THE answer to the question placed before us for decision turns solely on the construction of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That provision lays down that