(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- "Where a Civil Judge, Second Class having only limited power to try Small Cause suits tries a suit of Small Cause nature on the regular side without objection as to his jurisdiction by the defendant, is the decision a nullity when the suit could have been tried as a f mall Cause suit by another Court, namely the Court of Additional District Judge?" The learned single Judge thought it necessary to make this reference because of a conflict in the decisions of this Court in Mukund v. Firm Kashilal,. C. R. No. 178 of 1965 decided on 29th September, 1965. and Manakcha.nd v. Rajmal.. C. R. No. 377 of 1966 decided on 29th March, 1967. In Mukund"s case1 one of us (Sen J.) expressed the view that "if there exists a Court who has power to hear the suit under Small Cause Courts Act and if the suit is instituted in a civil Court that Court will have no jurisdiction to hear the suit of a small cause nature". In the case of Manakchand. C. R. No. 377 of 1966 decided on 29th March, 1967., Krishnan J. has held that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction if a Court, which is otherwise competent, tries a suit in breach of section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; and that if the point of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant in the Court below, he cannot be permitted to raise the objection for the first time in revision.
(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. 607-80 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 do 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 Manakchand v. RajmaP. 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.) SHRI Waghmare, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-opponents, however, urged that section 16 did not deprive the regular Courts altogether of jurisdiction in a suit congizable by a Court of Small Causes; and that if there was a Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction to try the suit, then section 16 merely prevented the regular Court from trying the suit as a small cause suit but did not prohibit the trial of the suit as an ordinary suit by the regular Court. It was said that if a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes was tried by a regular Court as an ordinary suit then the decision of the regular Court was not a nullity. This construction of section 16 cannot be accepted. The argument put forward by the learned counsel involves reading into section 16 words and expression which are not to be found therein. There is no justification whatsoever for reading the words "shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction" as meaning "shall not be