Prasanna Kumar Khan vs Uma Charan Hazra

Trevelyan, J.—In this case, in our opinion the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has erred in holding that the suit was excluded from his jurisdiction. He relied upon Article 35, sub-article (j) of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That sub-article (j) in our opinion applies to suits brought by per sons whose property has been illegally or improperly attached, or excessively distrained. It does not apply to a suit of this kind. It has been suggested, that Article 2 applies to this case; but having regard to the position of the Article 2, and also to the fact that there are many other Articles dealing with suits against persons in regard to actions taken by them under the authority of judgments or orders which they have obtained as suitors, we think that Article 2 refers to acts done by persons not acting as suitors in pursuance of a judgment or order which gives permission so to act, but as ministerial officer or otherwise obeying the order of the Court. It is necessary that the defendant should show that there is something to exclude the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. We can find nothing that would exclude that jurisdiction. The learned vakil for the defendant has sought to show that there is no cause of action here, apart from the question of jurisdiction. He admits that the facts detailed in the petition presented to us would disclose a cause of action, but argues, that the plaint does not. As a matter of fact, the plaint has not been translated by either side. We think that the question whether there is any cause of action at all is one which ought, first of all, to be decided by the Small Cause Court Judge. That is the tribunal which the Legislature intended, should determine it. It might be doing injustice, if we were to deal with the matter solely on the footing of the plaint, as it is possible that even if the plaint, did not disclose a cause of action, a question with regard to which we are not called upon to express our opinion, the Small Cause Court Judge might allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint and include in it, matters which would give him a cause of action. All we can say is that the Small Cause Court Judge had jurisdiction and he must try the case. We set aside the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge and direct the case to be tried by him. Costs of this application will be costs in the cause.