MUNICIPAL BOROUGH OF AHMEDABAD Vs. VADILAL DALSUKHRAM SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Ahmedabad made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The ground of the application is that such a claim as this does not lie and, therefore, the learned Judge had no right to pass the order which he did, and such order was not " according to law " within Section 25.

(2.) The suit arose in these circumstances. In the year 1936-37 a bill was issued to the applicant by the Ahmedabad Municipality claiming certain rates, including drainage rate, and a demand was duly made under Section 104 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The applicant appealed against the demand under Section 110, but his appeal was dismissed by the Magistrate. Then he went in revision to the Sessional Court under Section 111, and that application was also dismissed. Then he came in revision to this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it has been held that, although the Magistrate and the Sessions Court are exercising criminal jurisdiction, a revision application lies to this Court in a proper case under Section 115. (See Lokmanya Mills Ltd. V/s. Municipal Borough, Barsi . Why the provisions of Section 115 were held to apply in this case, I do not know. It looks rather as if the only point at issue was one of law, and therefore of appeal and not revision. However, the matter was entertained in this Court, and the learned Judge on January 17, 1940, held that the levy of a drainage tax was illegal, and directed refund of the amount paid in respect of that tax, the amount having been paid by the applicant on January 23, 1937, under protest.

(3.) In this suit the applicant claims from the Municipality in the Court of Small Causes interest on the amount of drainage tax which has been refunded, interest that is for the period from January 23, 1937, when the amount was paid, to April 30, 1940, when the amount was refunded. The learned Judge allowed the plaintiff's claim, and the contention of the defendant Municipalityis that interest cannot be allowed in law. If I were dealing with the matter free from authority, I should be inclined to say that whenever it is shown that a person has got money in his hands which belongs to somebody else, or when he is bound to pay money to somebody else, and does not do so, he ought to be liable to pay interest by way of damages for non-payment of the money on the due date. However, the matter is not free from authority.