MUKTIKANTA DAS Vs. BAIKUNTHA BCHCRA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Balasore in Misc. Case No. 65 of 1992 rejecting the prayer for transferor the suit from the Court of Munsif to that of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The present opposite parties as plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 44 of 1992-1 in the Court of Munsif, Bhadrak praying for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and for realisation or arrear house rent amounting to Rs. 500.00. The aforesaid prayer was based on the allegation that the defendant was a monthly tenant paying rent at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month. The defendant had given some advance which got adjusted towards arrear rent and the' plaintiff thereafter sent a notice terminating his tenancy and requiring him to vacate the premises and to pay the outstanding arrear house rent, if any. The defendant having not complied with the said notice, the present suit has been filed. The defendant being summoned appeared in the suit and filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. His case in short was that there was an agreement between the parties that the defendant shall continue to occupy the premises for 10 years and a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs as advance. The further allegation is that subsequently the plaintiffs took Rs. 500.00 from him and it was agreed between them that the house would be sold to the defendant at a consideration of Rs. 30,000.00 out of which he acknowledges to have received Rs. 12,500.00 as aforesaid. The plaintiff were to receive the balance consideration and register the deed of conveyance in his favour. The defendant has alleged that on 26.1.1992 the defendant paid a further sum of Rs. 12,500.00 and the balance Rs. 5000.00 was agreed to be taken by the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the sale deed. In stead of executing the sale deed, the plaintiffs have adopted a clever devise by filing the suit in the Court of the Munsif who, on account of the pecuniary limitation of his jurisdiction, cannot entertain a counter claim in respect of the relief which the defendant is entitled to pray for. The defendant also reserves his right to sue the plaintiffs for appropriate relief in the proper court of law. With these allegations the defendant claimed that the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant thereafter filed an application before the District Judge under section 24 of the C.P.C. praying for transfer of the suit from the Court of Munsif to that of the Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak or to any other appropriate court where the defendant's claim can be adjudicated. The District Judge having rejected the said application by the impugned order, the defendant has filed this revision challenging the same.

(3.) At the hearing before the learned District Judge the genuineness of the alleged agreement relied on by the defendant was called in question and it was contended before him that there has been interrelations in the alleged agreement for which reason the sanctity thereof has been lost. The learned District Judge in his ultimate conclusion indicated that a counter claim filed under Order 8, Rule 6-A cannot be permitted to exceed the pecuniary limits of the court in which the suit has been filed. Therefore, the same is not entertainable. Besides, the District Judge examined the xerox copy of the agreement produced before him and observed that there has been some interpolations. The application was dismissed for the reason that counter claim is not entertainable beyond the pecuniary limits of the court and the defendant has not come with clean hands inasmuch as the agreement relied on by him suffers from interpolations.