V.S. Rm. Lingier vs Ramakrishnaier

Bardswell, J.—The learned District Munsif has dismissed the petitioner''s application u/s 73 of the Village Courts Act, for revision of a decree of the Village Munsif, Madura Town, with the words "I see no reason to interfere. Dismissed." The main allegation of the petitioner before the District Munsif appears to have been that he was tricked by the Village Munsif into signing an agreement as to on what material his cause should be tried. The matter was argued before the District Munsif by two Vakils, one on either side, and I must take it that the District Munsif held, after a full discussion, that the petitioner''s contention was not made out. It has been remarked in Sundara Naicker Vs. Potti Naicker, that a District Munsif in exercising powers u/s 73 has a very wide discretion, and that in such a re-visional proceeding, when a District Munsif states that he has no sufficient cause to disturb the decree of the lower Court, he cannot be said to be writing an inadequate order. It is now contended for the petitioner that this view is incorrect and that a District Munsif when passing orders on a petition presented u/s 73 of the Madras Village Court''s Act, I of 1889, has to write a judgment such as complies with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The question then arises if whether a District Munsif when acting u/s 73 is bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It is quite clear that as to its scope generally the Madras Village Court''s Act is a self-contained Act to which the CPC does not apply. This has been pointed out by Curgenven, J., in Arumuga Nadar v. Vyyapuri Chetti 91 Ind. Cas. 193 : 49 M.L.J. 684 : (1925) M.W.N. 613 : 48 M. 944 : AIR 1926 Mad 1 & 289 : also(1926) M.W.N. 182,and is indeed quite clear from a perusal of the Act itself. But it is contended that the provisions of the CPC are attracted to Section 73 because an order u/s 73 can be revised by the High Court u/s 115. That there can be such revision has been held by Ramesam, J., in Rama Rao v. Pitchayya 104 Ind. Cas. 415 : 53 M.L.J. 131 : (1927) M.W.N. 420 : 39 M.L.T. 25 : AIR 1927 Mad. 786, though a Bench of two learned Judges were doubtful as to this in Paramasivam Pillai v. Periayanayagath Ammal 34 Ind. Cas. 503 : 34 Ind. Cas. 503. Allowing however, that there can be such revision, which is on the ground that a District Munsif''s Court is a court subordinate to the High Court, it does not follow that the court whose proceedings are revised must have been acting under the Civil Procedure Code. Ramesam, J., has carefully guarded himself from considering whether other sections of the Code apply to Village Courts. In my opinion Section 73 of the Village Court''s Act is no more affected by the CPC than are the other sections of the Act. It is contended that even so, when the Act is silent as to the order to be written u/s 73, the order should on general principles be one of the nature of a reasoned judgment. No doubt if a petition is allowed u/s 73 some reason for the order must be stated, but I do not think that any reason need be given in an order for dismissal, at any rate in a case such as this, where there has been a full discussion. I may note that all I have to go on here is the fact that the order of the District Munsif states no reasons. The order of the Village Munsif is not before me. I find no ground for interference and dismiss this petition with costs.