Sheikh Samiruddin vs Ali Buksh Doctor and Another

Hobhouse, J.—The plaintiff sued in this case to obtain damages from the defendants, on the ground that the defendants had committed a personal assault upon him, and so had caused injury to his reputation. He laid his damages at the sum of rupees 100. The first Court found that the assault was not proved, and dismissed the suit.

The lower appellate Court held in substance that the first Court had no jurisdiction to try the matter of the assault; that that was conclusively proved by the evidence taken in the Criminal Court; and that therefore all that the Civil Court had to do was, in the words of the Judge, to try whether any loss or detraction to plaintiff''s social position has been "suffered in consequence of the assault;" and the Judge thereupon remanded the case to be tried by the first Court upon that issue.

The defendants appeal specially before us, urging that the Judge is wrong in law in holding, that the first Court had no jurisdiction be try the factum of the assault, and that that factum was established by the judgment of the Criminal Court; and that the Judge therefore should not have remanded the case, but should have tried and determined the question of assault upon the evidence on the record.

A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this special appeal on the ground that, as this was a suit for damages below rupees 500 in value, therefore the provisions of section 27, Act XXIII of 1861, read with the provisions of section 6, Act XI of 1865, barred a special appeal to this Court. The words of the law on which the pleader for the special respondent relies are these:--"Provided that no action shall lie in any such Court" (that is, a Court of Small Causes), for the recovery of damages on account of an alleged personal injury, unless actual pecuniary damage shall have resulted from the injury." It is not contended that there is any allegation, much lass any evidence or finding on the record, that actual pecuniary damage did in this case result from the alleged personal injury on the basis of which the plaintiff sues, but the pleader for the special respondent relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Nadiar Chand Roy v. Baikant Nath Misser See 4 B.L.R. A.C.J. p. 33. In the judgment on which the pleader for the special respondent relies, no doubt the Judges do in a general way state that suits of the nature before us are suits cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, and that therefore no special appeal will lie to this Court in such suits. But in the first place, neither the facts of the case, nor the reasons which led the Judges to a decision in that case, are given in the judgment; and on the other hand we find that one of the Judges of that Division Bench (KEMP, J.) in a decision in the case of Prankrishna Banerjee v. Nadiar Chand Chatterjee 2 distinctly holds that a suit of

1Special Appeal No. 202 of 1869

29.07.1869

Baikant Nath Misser

Vs.

Nadiar Chand Roy

Kemp and Markby, JJ.—The defendant in this case charged the plaintiff in the Criminal Court with plotting to murder him. The plaintiff was accordingly arrested and brought hand-cuffed before the Magistrate. The charge was dismissed. Plaintiff then sued the defendant in the Court of the Moonsiff of Chauki Woonda for damages on account of the injury to his reputation and pain of body and mind" caused by the malicious prosecution of him by the defendant on a false charge. The damages were laid at rupees 100. The Moonsiff was of opinion that the charge had been instituted without any reasonable cause; and after taking into consideration the social position of the plaintiff, gave him a decree, but awarded him rupees 25 only, with costs on the whole amount claimed, with interest at one per cent, per mensem ."

The Subordinate Judge upheld the Moonsiff''s decision, dismissing the appeal, and directed that the costs in the original Court and in his own Court should be paid by the defendant,

The defendants then appealed to the High Court against the correctness of the decision generally, and also on the question of costs.

Kemp. J.

This was a suit for damages laid at rupees 100. Such a suit being one of a nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes, no special appeal will lie u/s 27 of Act XXIII of 1861. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.

Markby, J.

I am of the same opinion.

2

Nadiar Chand Chatterjee

Vs.

Prankrishna Banerjee

Special Appeal No. 280 of 1868

06.07.1868

Kemp and E. Jackson, JJ.

Prankrishna Banerjee laid a charge of arson in a Criminal Court against Nadiar Chand Chatterjee, the plaintiff in the present suit. He was consequently compelled to appear before the Criminal Court, and answer to the charge. The charge was dismissed. Nadiar Chand Chatterjee then instituted this suit in the Moonsifi''s Court against Prankrishna Banerjee for damages occasioned to his reputation by a false and malicious charge, He laid the damages at rupees 150. No actual pecuniary loss in consequence of the charge was alleged. It was proved that there had been previously some ill-feeling between the parties, and that the present defendant''s house took fire suddenly at night. The Moonsiff considered that the defendant had not acted through feelings of animosity in bringing the charge, and dismissed the present suit.

The Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed the decision of the Moonsiff. He considered that the defendant had maliciously brought a false charge against the plaintiff, who, as a respectable-person, had been thereby "lowered in the estimation of the community," and been submitted to bodily uneasiness and inconvenience," and mental anxiety," He took into consideration the defendant''s circumstances, and on the 19th November 1867 decreed that defendant do pay to plaintiff the sum of rupees 50 out of the amount claimed, and all costs in both Courts."

The defendant appealed to the High Court on the ground inter alia, that damages had been awarded to the plaintiff without considering the extent of the actual pecuniary loss sustained by him; and that he was entitled to costs respecting so much of the claim as was not decreed to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

Kemp, J.—A preliminary objection was taken by the pleader for the special respondent against the hearing of this appeal. The pleader refers to section 27, Act XXIII of 1861. This is a suit which, in our opinion, is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes; it not being a suit for the recovery of damages on account of alleged personal injury, nor for actual pecuniary damages resulting from such injury. We therefore think that the special appeal may proceed. The suit was for damages laid at rupees 150. It was alleged that the defendants brought a false and malicious charge of mischief by fire against the plaintiff in a Criminal Court. This charge was found to be not proved; hence this suit for damages. The