RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. SHAM DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sued for return of ornaments and for certain money expended. The ornaments are said to have been given and the money is said to have been expanded in consequence of a marriage which had been arranged and the suit for recovery was due to the fact of that marriage having fallen through. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on the merits, having heard it fully.

(2.) This application in Civil revision is now made by the plaintiff urging that the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes was ousted by Clause 35, Sub-clause (g) of Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. That clause bars the trial of suits for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage.

(3.) In view of the fact that part of the claim was for money which it was alleged had been expended in preliminary marriage ceremonies I think that the clause in question would, if appealed to, by either party or if it had come to the notice of the learned Judge earlier, have been a bar to the trial of the suit by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court. On the other hand, the suit was tried out fully by him on the merits without any objection by either party and without the point having come otherwise to his notice.