SHAMSHER MUNDUL Vs. GANENDRA NARAIN MITTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment complained of in this case should not be set aside on the ground that it dealt with a claim to tiled huts, which, in accordance with the ruling in the case of Denonath Batabyal V/s. Adhor Chunder Sett (1899) 4 C. W. N. 470., a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to deal with, being immoveable property.

(2.) Dr. Rash Behari Ghose, for the opposite party, contends that the Bench taking cases of the Presidency Group has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter, and that it has no power to set aside like decree of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes, which is not within the jurisdiction of this Bench. He calls attention to Rule II of Chapter III of the Rules of this Court, Appellate Side, in column 1 of which rule the districts over which this Bench has jurisdiction are specified, and he points out that the 24-Parganas is one of those districts, but Calcutta is not. He has further called attention to the cases of Peary Mohun Ghosaul V/s. Harran Chunder Gangooly (1885) I. L. R. 11 Calc. 261. and E. D. Sassoon V/s. Hurry Das Bhukut (1896) I. L. R. 24 Calc. (sic), which show that rules for the setting aside of decrees by the Small Cause Court are issued from the Original Side of this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned pleader for the applicant relies upon the case of Kadambini Baiji V/s. Madan Mohan Basak (1893) 3 C. W. N. 24(sic), in which it has been held that the High Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, has power to transfer a suit from the Court of Small Causes to any other Court having equal or superior jurisdiction.