HUKUM KANDOO Vs. BABU JAINTRI GOVIND RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies on the ground that the case was one of Small Cause Court nature. We think the objection is sound. In all these cases where it is suggested that the suit is one for damages or loss due to an offence punishable under Chap. 17, I. P. C, the decision must vary according to the particular circumstances set out, and the various allegations made, in the plaint. It is manifest that in some instances there would be a plain unambiguous accusation of an offence and in some cases there will be nothing whatever to suggest that a civil wrong had been committed. Between the two there must be an infinite variety of cases until those two which are one on each side of the border line are very very approximate in their facts. Each case must be considered on its own allegations in the plaint. There may also be circumstances, of course, in the past history which may help the interpretation of the plaint. For instance, in this case there was an allegation that one tree had been cut three years ago, followed by criminal proceedings in which the defendants were acquitted. Two or three years later further trees were cut. The plaintiff made no effort whatever in the meantime to establish his title. Had he done so success fully, there might have been no room for doubt as to the dishonest intention of the defendants; but he made no attempt to establish his title in the interval. We only mention this as illustrating how one single fact among the varying circumstances of particular eases may alter the whole effect of the allegations made in the plaint. We think that in this case the suit was of the Small Cause Court nature, and no second appeal lies. We dismiss it with costs.