ADU MALO Vs. NAGAR BASHI MALO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegation in the plaint was that the plaintiff s net had been forcibly torn and the fish collected by him in an enclosure allowed to escape, so that he had suffered damage to the extent of Rs. 150, namely, Rs. 25 for net and Rs. 125 for fish, which he wanted to recover from the defendants on account of their wrongful act. The suit has been decreed for the sum of Rs. 100 by the Small Cause Court Judge.

(2.) The contention before us is that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit as it was barred by the provisions of item (i), Article, 35 of Schedule II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as amended by Act VI of 1914.

(3.) The allegations contained in the plaint seem to make out an offence against property under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. This was, therefore, a case which was excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court and the said Court had no jurisdiction to try it.