C P BANNERJEE Vs. BSIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter I had delivered a judgment on October 6, 1948, but, after I did so, my attention was drawn to the fact that the Bombay Legislature had simultaneously with the enactment of Bombay Act XLIV of 1948 also enacted Bombay Act XLI of 1948 called the Bombay High Court Letters Patent Amendment Act, 1948. This necessitated a further "argument and in the result I quashed the judgment which I had dictated on October 6, 1948, and put down the matter for further argument. The matter has been thereafter fully argued before me by Mr. Palkhiwalla appearing for the plaintiff, Mr. M.M. Desai appearing for the defendant and by Mr. B.J. Divan whom I appointed to argue the matter before me per amicus curiae.

(2.) The question that falls to be determined by me in this matter is whether this Court has jurisdiction to further try and determine the suit, having entertained it at a time when according to the law as it then stood it had jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(3.) The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant on September 12, 1947, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,000 with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum from December 20, 1945, or February 13, 1946, as the case may be until judgment, costs and interest on judgment at 4 per cent, per annum till payment. The suit was thus for the recovery of a sum over Rs. 1,000 and below Rs. 2,000. Under Section 21 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act as it then stood the plaintiff had the election to institute this suit in the High Court, the amount or the value of the subject-matter thereof exceeding Rs. 1,000, even though under Section 18 of the Act the Small Causes Court would have jurisdiction to try this suit, the amount or value of the subject-matter not having exceeded Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff filed this suit in the High Court in pursuance of this election which was given to him under Section 21 of the Act and the suit was thus rightly received by the High Court and the High Court would in the ordinary course have had jurisdiction to try and dispose of the same, subject of course to the provisions contained in Section 22 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act as it then stood, which provided that in case of suits cognizable by the Small Cause Court to which Section 21 applied no costs would be allowed to the plaintiff if the plaintiff obtained a decree for any amount or value of less than Rs. 300, and that the defendant would be entitled to his costs as between attorney and client if the plaintiff did not obtain any decree therein.