ANANT PRASAD SINGH Vs. CHUNNU TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected applications in revision arising out of a suit on the basis of a promissory note which was decreed against the defendant-applicant. The applicant instituted an appeal against the decree, but the learned Judge refused to interfere upon the ground that he had no jurisdiction because the decree had been passed by a Court of Small Causes and no appeal lay. The suit was instituted in the Court of Mr. Sheo Harakh Lal who had the power to deal with it as a Court of Small Causes. Mr. Sheo Harakh Lal was transferred and was not replaced by any other officer. The suit therefore went to the Court of the learned Munsif who decided it. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court held that the Munsif must be deemed to have been acting as a Court of Small Causes under the provisions of Section 24, Civil P.C. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant contended that the suit went to the Munsif's Court under the provisions of Section 35, Small Cause Courts Act, and not under the provisions of Section 24, Civil P.C., and that for this reason it was triable as a regular suit.

(2.) There is a note on the order sheet that the case was transferred under orders passed by the District Judge but the order of the District Judge is not upon the record. I gave the applicant an opportunity to produce a copy of the order because it was impossible to say without examining it whether it was an administrative order or an order purporting to be under Section 24, Civil P.C. Learned Counsel says that he has instructions from his client that the Registrar of this Court drew the attention of the District Judge to the provisions of a General Letter issued by the Court in the year 1931 and that the District Judge forwarded the Registrar's letter to the Court below for necessary action. This General Letter drew the attention of the Subordinate Courts to the provisions of Section 35, Small Cause Courts Act, and pointed out that cases which were transferred automatically by that Section from a Court of Small Causes to a regular Court were to be tried as regular suits. The letter therefore suggested to District Judges that it was advisable for them as a matter of administrative convenience to transfer cases under Section 24, Civil P.C., before a Court of Small Causes was abolished if they were aware that that Court was about to be abolished. Mr. Sheo Harakh Lal gave over charge as appears from the office-note on the afternoon of 22 April, 1937. The letter addressed to the District Judge of Benares was written by the Registrar of this Court on 17 April and learned Counsel admits that it was forwarded by the District Judge before 22nd April. The exact terms of the order are not before me, but in these circumstances there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that the learned District Judge intended to accept the advice given in this Court's General Letter and to transfer cases from the Court of Mr. Sheo Harakh Lal under the provisions of Section 24, Civil P.C. That being so, the learned Munsif was acting an a Court of Small Causes when he dealt with the suit and there was no appeal from his judgment and decree. One application in revision before me is against the order of the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court refusing to exercise jurisdiction. There is no force in this application and it is dismissed with costs.

(3.) The other application is against the decree of the learned Munsif. The suit was originally instituted on 29 July 1936. The promissory note was dated 30 July 1933. The suit was therefore within limitation when the plaint was presented. It appears however that the plaint was written upon paper which was insufficiently stamped and although the Court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to pay the court- fees within a certain time the court-fees were not paid and the plaint was rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C. Sometime later the plaintiff made an application to the Court that he would have paid the court-fees within the time allowed but that he had taken ill and could not do so. He prayed that the additional court-fees should be accepted and that the plaint should be restored. The Court accepted his contention and restored the plaint on 1 May 1937.