AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 171 wordsWilson, J.—This was a rule granted u/s 622 of the CPC to show cause why a decision of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes should not be set aside. The only ground on which it is contended that it should be set aside is the ground of want of jurisdiction. The proceedings show that the suit was a mere suit for trespass, based on the plaintiff''s possession. The defence was a denial of possession; no question of title was raised, and I am asked to hold that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction. No doubt before the present Act the Court had this jurisdiction; but I cannot think that jurisdiction is taken away by the new Act; all that is taken away is by Section 19, but this is not a suit for recovery of Immovable property, nor a suit for determination of any other right to, or interest in, Immovable property. No question of title is raised or determined.
I think the rule must be discharged with costs.