BADAL CHANDRA PROHEL Vs. SRIKRISHNA DEY NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal relates to the true meaning of Clause (4), Section 24, Civil P.C. (Act 5 of 1908.)

(2.) The suit was for recovery of Rs. 870 on account of price of milk alleged to have been supplied to the defendants It was instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah which has pecuniary jurisdiction up to the limit of Rs. 1000. A suit for rent between the parties being pending at the time in the Third Court of the Munsiff at Alipur, the District Judge of 24 Parganas, at the instance of the defendant and on the consent of the plaintiff, transferred the suit to the Court of the Munsiff to be tried along with the said rent suit. The Munsiff was invested with Small Cause Court powers up to Rs. 250. He registered the suit as an ordinary money suit and tried it as such and decreed it for Rs. 432 with interest and proportionate costs. The defendant appealed from the decision and obtained a modification of the decree which had been passed by the trial Court, the amount of the decree being reduced to Rs. 127- 1.0. The plaintiff has then preferred this appeal.

(3.) The contention that has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that under Section 24, Sub-section (4), the Munsiff should be deemed to have tried the suit as a Court of Small Causes and accordingly no appeal lay from his decision. The question, therefore, is one of construction of that Sub-section.