V.S.Rm. Lingier vs Ramakrishnier

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 v. Potti Naicker ILR (1926) 50

Mad. 494 : M.L.J. 561 that a District Munsif in exercising powers u/s 73 has a very wide discretion, and that in such a revisional 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 Courts Act I of 1889 has to write a judgment such as complies with the provisions of Order 20, Rule 4(2) of the Civil

Procedure Code. The question then arises 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 Courts Act is a self-contained Act to which the CPC does not apply. This has been

pointed out by Curgenven, J. in Arumuga Nadar Vs. Vyyapuri Chetti alias Muthayan Chetti, 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

That there can be such revision has been held by Ramesam, J. in Konakalla Rama Rao Vs. Nallari Pitchayya, though a Bench of two learned

Judges were doubtful as to this in Paramasivam Pillai v. Periyanayagath Ammal (1916) 34 I.C. 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 Courts 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.