GUJARMAL Vs. SUKHPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application arises under the following circumstances: The plaintiff Gujarmal instituted the suit for the recovery of Rs. 217/- on the basis of khata against the defendant-opposite party Sukhpal before the Nyaya Panchayat Sakar on 1lth November, 1962. Briefly the case of the plaintiff was that on 4th November, 1959 the defendant executed a Khata for Rs. 264/- and made payments of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 60/- on 2. 7th April, 1960 and 26th August, 1960 and 26th August, 1960 respectively. It is not expressly stated that the defendant had signed the payment entries, but it appears from the Khata filed by the plaintiff before the said Nyaya Panchayat that the payment of 26th August, 1960 was thumb marked by the defendant and in view of the fact that rules of pleadings are not strictly followed in the Nyaya Panchayat, it may be taken that the payments were signed by the defendant. The Panchayat considered it to be a fit case to be tried by the regular court under sec. 55 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (Act No. XXI of 1953) hereinafter called the Act and therefore sent it to the court of Munsif Rajgarh for trial. The Munsif was of the view that the suit, when instituted before the Panchayat, was barred by time under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the said Panchayat was not competent to send the case to him under sec. 55 of the Act and he, therefore, dismissed the suit.

(2.) ON appeal by the plaintiff, the Senior Civil Judge endorsed the view of the learned Munsif that the suit was barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act. He dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has filed this revision application on the ground that the lower court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff as it was within time. This revision application was heard by Jagat Narayan J. and in his view the question raised was of importance and therefore, he referred the case to a Division Bench for decision.

(3.) THE argument addressed before the Supreme Court was that sec. 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act gave only concurrent jurisdiction to the Gram Cutcherry in the regular criminal court and it left it open to a party to go either to the ordinary courts or to a bench of the Gram Cutcherry and that this opened the door for discrimination because the procedure followed in the ordinary Courts is substantially different from that followed by a Gram Cutcherry. This argument was rejected on the ground that sec. 62 was subject to sec. 68 which laid down that no court shall take cognizance of any case or suit which is cognizable under the Act by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry, unless on order to the contrary has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Munsif concerned under the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. It was pointed out that really there was no discrimination and a case cognizable by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry must the tried there. This case, however, is distinguishable on the ground that in the Act there is no provision giving exclusive jurisdiction to the Naya Panchayat.