Prabha Singh Surjft Singh Firm vs Sanka Narasinmha Rao

Umamaheswaram, J.—This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of law. The Petitioner hereto filed S, C.:No. 2602 of 1950 in the Court of Small Causes of Madras for recovery of the prices of goods-supplied by-him to the Respondent herein. The Respondent filed S. C. No. 586 of 1950 in the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada against the Petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82-2-3 being down charges, railway freight, demurrage, On the application of the Petitioner, the suit filed Bezwadu was transferred io the Court of Small J, Causes, Madras, and numbered as Suit No. 2013 of M952. Both the suits''were tried together. The Small fCause Judge held that the Court had no jurisdiction to fifentertara Suit No. 2602 of 1950 as the cause of action jiixkd arisen only in Vijayawada and he directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to proper Court.

In the suit which was transferred he held that the "Respondent was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.

20-12-3 by way of freight and demurrage charges.

The basis of the decree was that the Respondent tad rightly rejected the goods as they were not in accordance with tire goods agreed to be sold. The Petitioner thereupon presented the plaint in Sub-Court, Vijayawada, on 13lh June 1932, and it was numbered as S. C. No. 370 of 1952.

A preliminary objection was raised by the Respondent herein that the decision in S. C. No. 586 of 1950, District Munsif Court, Vijayawada, which was registered as S; C. No. 2013 oi 1952 on the file . of. the Court of Small Causes, Madras, operated has resjudicata. The Subordinate Judge upheld the plea and dismissed the suit. The Petitioner had consequently filed the Civil Revision Petition to this Court.

The only question that has to be decided is, whether the decision of die Small Cause Judge, Madras, in S. C. No. 2013 of 1932, operates as res judicata or not. As the Small Cause Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain S. C. No. 2602 of 1950, there was no validly instituted suit on the file of that Court, it was pidsented in the Court of die "Subordinate Judge Vijayawada. on L''itl. June. 1952. As field in V. Ramaswami Aiyar and Another Vs. Veerarayan Raja alias Kuttunni, the present Eralpad Raja and Another, , die piescntat.um ol the plaint to A Court which has no jurisdiction to try the suit can-:not be said to be the institution'' ot the suit, even �though the plaint had been accepted as being in order and registered. It was only when the plaint was presented to the Sub-Court at Vijayawada on 13th June, 1952, jthat the suit must be taken to have teen instituted. � By that date, there was the decision of the Small Cause Judge, Madras, in S. C. No. 2013 of 1952, holding that the Petitioner herein had com-,mitted a breach of the contract & that the Respondent was entitled to reject the goods. It is well established that the expression ''fomier suit'' u/s 11, Code of Civil Procedure, means a previously decided smt - vide Mulla''s CPC (]2th edn., Vol. 1, p. 38). So, that decision would operate as res judicata, u/s 11, Code of Civil Procedure, as it was a decision rendered between the same parties in a former suit.

The next question that arises for consideration is, whether the Small Cause Judge, Madras, was competent to try and dispose of the former suit, viz., S. C. No. 2013 of 1952 which was transferred to that Court u/s 24, Code of Civil Procedure, to be tried .along with S. C. No. 2602 of 1950. Venka''tasubba Rao, J., construed the terms of Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, in Rajagopala Pandarathar v. Tivupathia Pillai, AIR 1926 Mad 21 (B), and held at p. 425 that in iwgard to suits competency should not be tinders''ool 3n the sense oft terr''torial or loea1 competency. The tine view was taken by the- Alahabad High Court Kishore Lal Vs. Balkishan, (Q. (Dec.) 1857 Andh. Pra. D.F./63 At p. 661, Sulaiman, C. J., delivering the judgment, held as follows: "The same words ''competent to try the suit'' occur in Section 11, CPC as also Section 15. It is quite clear tnat for ptfrpses ot res judicata it is not necessary that the two'' Cowls must have concurrent territorial jurisdiction which depends entirely on the subject matter in dispute. The provision in Section 15 would point, to die same conclusion." In an earlier part of the same judgment, the learned Chief Justice observed in.construing the terms of Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, diat the word ''competent'' must be taken to refer to pecuniary jurisdiction. Sri Lakshininarayana referred to a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Das and Another Vs. Habib Ullah, hell in the latter lease in Kishore Lal Vs. Balkishan, that the earlier decision was wrongly decided. Collister, J., has taken the same view, in Rang Lai v. Gajraj Singh, AIR 1939,. All,202 (E), and held that competency in Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, has no reference to territorial jurisdiction. Following the above decisions bold that the Small Cause Court, Madras, was competent to try the suit within the meaning of Section 11, CPC as it had pecuniary jurisdiction though not territorial jurisdiction.

Sri Lakshininarayana contended that the decision in S. C, No. 2013 of 1952 would not operate as res judicata as both the suits were tried together and relied upon the Full Bench decision in Pappammal alias Muthu Karuppayyee Ammal Vs. Meenammal and Others, . That decision has really no application to the facts of this case. What was held in that decision was that the judgment not appealed against does not operate as repudiate when all the suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment, and an appeal is preferred as against the decree in one of those suits. The basis of that decision was that there was an appeal pending to get rid of the very adjudication which was put forward as constituting res judicator. In the instant case, no appeal or revision was filed as against the common judgment and the decision in S. C. No. 2013 of 1952 had become final. I agree with the view taken by the Court below that the decision operates as repudiate.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is consequently dismissed with costs.