RAM PRASHAD Vs. GHISULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned District Judge, Ajmer, under O. 46, R. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it, in brief, are as follows : - On 30th August, 1947, Ramprasad brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 400/-against Ghisulal and Sohanlal who were described as proprietors of the business carried on in the name and style of Ghisulal Sohanlal. It was averred by the plaintiff that he was; a grain-merchant carrying on business of grain at Prao, Ajmer. Defendant No. 2 was working as a Munim at his shop. During the period between 7th November, 1953 and 3rd October, 1954, the defendants purchased, on credit, grain worth Rs. 10,654/3/- and paid a sum of Rs. 10,394/6/6 on different dates between the said period, leaving a balance of Rs. 259/12/6 outstanding against them. It was further stated that an amount of Rs. 131/- was wrongly credited to their account and thus he was entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 339/12/6. After adding interest, he rounded off the figure at Rs. 400/- recoverable from them. This plaint was returned ,by the Judge, Small Causes Court to the plaintiff to be presented to the proper court since he thought that it was a suit for account and, therefore, it was not triable by him on account of the provisions of Article 31 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. When the plaint was presented before the Munsiff, he thought that the suit was triable by the Small Cause Court and so he also returned the plaint. Thus, on account of difference of opinion between the two courts, the matter was taken to the Court of District Judge, Ajmer. THE learned District Judge has reported that the suit did not come within the ambit of Art. 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, referred above.