HAKAM DEVI Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1349.62 against the defendants on account of the rent in respect of the crops from Kharif 1962 to Rabi 1965, on the ground that the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiffs during that period. An order of ejectment had been made against the defendants on 2nd February, 1965, as a result of which the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end. The defendants raised an objection before the learned trial Court that the civil Court had no jurisdiction as the matter was cognizable by the revenue Court under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. They also denied that any amount was due from them to the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-

(2.) According to sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, if it appears to a civil Court that a Court under its control has determined a suit of a class mentioned in Section 77, which, under the provisions of that Section, should have been heard and determined by a revenue Court, it shall submit the record of the suit to the High Court. Sub-section (2) provides that if on perusal of the record it appears to the High Court that the suit was so determined in good faith and that the parties have not been prejudiced by the mistake as to jurisdiction, the High Court may order that the decree be registered in the Court which had jurisdiction.

(3.) In order to act under this Section, the High Court has to come to the conclusion that the suit was determined in good faith and that the parties have not been prejudiced by the mistake as to the jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the suit was determined in good faith by the trial Court. Objection with regard to the jurisdiction was raised and an issue was framed. Arguments were heard but the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was triable by the civil Court as at the time the suit was filed the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. It may be an erroneous decision but certainly it cannot be said that the learned trial Court did not decide the suit in good faith. The learned counsel for the defendants has not been able to show any prejudice caused to his clients by the mistake as to jurisdiction. The amount decreed against the defendants by the learned trial Court was not challenged before the learned District Judge in appeal which means that the defendants accepted that the amount decreed was due from them to the plaintiffs-respondents. It is thus clear that no prejudice has been caused to the defendants by the mistake as to jurisdiction committed by the learned trial Court. I am of the opinion that the suit was decided by the trial Court in good faith and no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to either of the parties by the mistake as to jurisdiction. The case is, therefore, covered by sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and the learned District Judge was fully justified in submitting the record to this Court for registration of the decree.