HADUBANDHU SINGH Vs. SUDHAKAR PAIKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff sued before the Small Cause Court for recovery of damages from defendant no. 1, on the allegation that he forcibly removed the crops grown by the plaintiff for which the plaintiff lodged F.I.R. in the Bolgarh P. S. under Section 379, I. P. C. Admittedly, defendant no. 2 is the landlord under whom plaintiff claims tenancy. THE case of defendant no. 1 is that he is the tenant in respect of the disputed land and grew the crop and plaintiff has been falsely set up by defendant no. 2. THE learned Small Causes Court Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit. Against that decree this civil revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(2.) MR. Ram on behalf of the petitioner raised a number of contentions. It is not necessary to examine all. It would be sufficient for the disposal of this civil revision to examine his contention that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was barred under Art. 35 (ii) of Schedule II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Article 35 (ii) lays down that a suit for compensation for an act which would be an offence punishable under Chap. XVII of the Indian Penal Code is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The question for consideration is whether in the plaint a case was made out in respect of an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. which occurs in Chapter XVII. Paragraph 5 of the plaint runs :