P.V. Venkatarama Setty vs G. Venkataramanaiah

Krishnan, J.—The Revision petitioner was the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 222 of 1980 on the file of the Munsiff, Gowribidanur. That was a

suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 1,600/- from the defendant on the basis of a promote dated 3-2-1974. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit

prayed for. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree preferred R.A.No. 13 of 1986 on the file of the Civil Judge,

Chickballapur. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the endorsement dated 16-1-1977 found on Ex.P3 and that

therefore the suit was barred by time and hence he set aside the judgment and decree of the of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. The plaintiff

being aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge has preferred this Revision Petition.

The only point that was canvassed on behalf of the Revision Petitioner is that the suit being one for recovery of the amount due on the basis of a

pronote executed by the defendant, it is of the nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and the value of the subject matter of the original

suit does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- and therefore the appeal to the learned Civil Judge could lie only on a question of law as provided by Section

96(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. This sub section was incorporated by Section 33 of Act No 104 of 1976. It reads as hereunder:

No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount

or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees.''

Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 which refers to the cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes reads as hereunder:

Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes:- (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Schedule as

suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.

(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in the Schedule and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which

the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes:

Provided that the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, may by notification, direct that all suits of which the value does not

exceed three thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the notification.

The Schedule to the said Act enumerates the various types of suits excepted from cognizance of Court of Small Causes. Sub-section (1) of

Section 8 refers to the type of cases cognizance of which is not expected to be taken note of by the Court of Small Causes, whereas Sub-section

(2) prescribes the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. If the contention of the learned Advocate for petitioner is that while

determining the meaning of suit of the nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes used in Section 96(4) C.P.C. it is only Section 8(1) of the

Act read with the schedule that is to be taken note of, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that both Sub-sections (1) and (2) should be

taken note of while determining the meaning ''suit of the nature cognizable by Court of Small Causes'' occurring in the said Section.

The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent is without any substance for more than one reason. If the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed

by Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act is also to be taken note of for determining the meaning of the above said phrase, occurring in Section

96(4), there was no further necessity to introduce in the said Section the further portion -

when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand.

Further it is undisputed that no appeal lies against the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes except as provided by Section 17 thereof

and Section 18 provides for a revision against the decree or order of Court of Small Causes and Section 19 enjoins that save as provided by these

provisions, the decree or order made under the provisions of this Act by the Court of Small Causes shall be final. If we have to accept the

contention advanced on behalf of the respondent, it would amount to providing for an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court of

Small Causes on a question of law u/s 96(4) of C.P.C. This would run practically contra to the mandate of Section 19 of the Court of Small Cause

Courts Act.

It may be noticed that even in Section 102 C.P.C. the words

any suit of the nature of cognizable by the Court of Small Causes

occur and that Section prescribes that if it is a suit of the nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and if the amount or value of the subject

matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- no second appeal lies. This very question pertaining to Section 102 C.P.C. had come up for

consideration before this Court in TEJSHI AND ANR. v. ASSALCHAND AND ANR. ILR 1983 (Kar) 118. It has been ported out in this

Decision that sub section (2) of Section 8 of the Act is not relevant in finding out the meaning of the phrase ""nature of suit cognizable by the Courts

of Small Causes."" The relevant passage is as hereunder

Thus, it is clear that Sub-section (1) of Section 8 speaks of nature of suits cognizable by Small Causes Courts. Sub-section (2) of the said Section

speaks of pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes. In Section 102 C.P.C. we are not concerned with the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes

Courts. What is contemplated u/s 102 C.P.C. is the nature of suits cognizable by Small Causes Courts. It does not speak of restriction by way of

pecuniary jurisdiction imposed on Small Causes Courts. That is because the Section itself gives the limit so far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is

concerned, that it shall not exceed Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, Sub-section (2) of Section 8 is not relevant for our purpose. The point at issue would

be whether the suit in question in the present case partakes the nature of a suit cognizable by Court of Small Causes.

Nothing could be urged on behalf of the respondent to say that a different view is possible with reference to the meaning of the very same

phrase which occurs in Section 96(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, However, the learned Advocate for the respondent invited my attention to the

following Decisions of the Madras and Allahabad High Courts-

V.A.PALAYYAN v. CHANDRAMOHAN 1982 MLJ 160.

LALA HARI SHYAM v. MANGAL PRASAD AIR 1983 All 275

Both these Decisions have absolutely no relevance to the point under consideration because what was decided in the first of these Decisions is that

even though a suit is cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, if the counter claim made by the defendant is in excess of the suit claim and beyond

the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, the counter claim is not maintainable in the Court of Small Causes. That is not the point

with which are concerned here. In the second Decision what was decided was that despite the provisions of provisions Small Cause Courts Act, a

suit for recovery of money of Rs. 1360/- was filed in the Court of Munsiff and decree was passed and no objection had been taken to the

jurisdiction of the Court and under those circumstances, it was held that decree could not be treated as a nullity and it was executable. Again, that

is not the aspect with which we are presently concerned. Having regard to all these aspects it is clear that while determining the nature of the suit

for the purpose of Section 96(4) C.P.C. we are guided only by Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Small Cause Courts Act as also its Schedule. If

that be so, it is not the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent that still the suit is not of the nature of cognizable by the Court of

Small Causes. When that is so and when the value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 3,000/-, it is clear that an appeal

could lie against the judgment and decree passed in such a suit only on a question of law.

The learned Civil Judge has not at all considered this aspect of the matter and has proceeded to dispose of the appeal on all the aspects. When

that is so, it is clear that the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to him to

find out whether any question of law arises for consideration in the appeal and then dispose of the appeal according to law.

In the result, the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge are set aside and the case is remitted back to him for disposal according to law

in the light of the observations made above. The Revision Petition is allowed only to the extent indicated above.