MANGILAL Vs. LAXMANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant in the Small Cause Court, Akola. to recover Rs. 514-14-0 on, the allegation that the defendant had purchased cotton from him but had not paid the price. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Second Class Sub-Judge, Murtizapur. The defence was that the full price was paid soon after the cotton was purchased and that the plaintiff by false representation had bolted away with the Tak patti which the defendant had tendered for plaintiff's signature. The defendant also claimed compensation under Section 35-A, Civil P.C., against the plaintiff for having brought the suit.

(2.) AFTER an elaborate trial the learned Sub-Judge found the defendant's version to be true and dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding it to be absolutely false and frivolous and awarded Rs. 100 as compensation to the defendant.

(3.) IT was also argued that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for compensation under Section 35-A, Civil P.C., because the jurisdiction conferred upon it for trying Small Cause Court cases was only up to Rs. 200 and it was not empowered by the High Court to award compensation under the said section. This contention is, however, groundless. The suit was for the recovery of Rs. 514-14-0 and was originally instituted in the Small Cause Court, Akola, subsequently it was transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Murtizapur and was tried as an ordinary Civil Suit. But under Section 24(4), Civil P.C., the lower Court was for the purposes of this suit a Court of Small Causes and must be deemed to have possessed the same powers as the Court from which the suit was transferred to it possessed. If the Small Cause Court, Akola, had the power, as it admittedly had, to pass an order under Section 35-A, Civil P.C., the lower Court must be deemed to have had a like power. I overrule this objection. The application for revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Pleader's fee Rs. 25.