PUKHRAJ Vs. MOHAMMED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the defendant Pukhraj against the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge, Jodhpur, by which he decreed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff carried on business of supplying bicycles on hire. His case is that on 1-4-1952, the defendant took out a bicycle from him on hire and failed to return it. In fact, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had reported on that very day that the bicycle had been lost. Thereafter the plaintiff gave a notice on 6-5-1952, to the defendant to pay the price of the lost bicycle; but as the defendant gave an evasive reply, the plaintiff brought the present suit on 29-10-1952, in which he claimed back the bicycle or in the alternative a sum of Rs. 154 as price of the bicycle, and a sum of 0-7-6 as notice expenses and a further sum as future rent from the date of the suit to the date of delivery of the bicycle or its price at the rate of Re. 1/- per day. The defendant totally denied the claim. The Small Cause Court Judge held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his case and, therefore, decreed the suit for Rs. 125/- as price of the bicycle plus -/7/6 by way of expenses for the notice and he further allowed two annas per day as hire from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. The defendant has come up in revision against the above judgment and decree.

(3.) THE first and the foremost question raised by learned counsel for the defendant in this Court is that the plaintiff's suit was not of a nature cognizable by the Small cause Court. In support of this contention he relies on Article 8 of the Schedule of the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance (No. VIII) of 1950. This Article reads thus :