Y. Narasimha Reddy vs M.C. Nagaraju and Another

P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also Mr. A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent.

Perused the material available on record. The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the judgment in A.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The said appeal was filed as against the judgment in S.C.No.139 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The said small cause suit was filed for recovery of Rs.10,000/- due under a promissory note. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, on appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and DW-1 and also Ex.A-1, suit promissory note dated 1.6.1995 and Ex.B-1, copy of the charge sheet, had arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff in the suit is entitled for the relief and decreed the suit. And aggrieved by the same, the first defendant in the suit had preferred A.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, which was allowed so far it relates to the appellant therein i.e. the first defendant in the small cause suit. And aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in view of the specific remedy provided u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short ''the Act''), as against the small cause decree, a regular appeal under the CPC (for short ''the CPC'') is not maintainable. The learned counsel also had argued about the saving of limitation relating to the acknowledgment made by one person and its binding nature on others and also the erroneous findings recorded by the court below relating to the part payment of the debt.

Learned counsel for the first respondent had contended that the appellate court at paragraph (5) had framed the point for determination as follows:

"Whether the endorsement alleged to have been made by the 2nd respondent and two others, would save limitation as against the appellant herein?"

Learned counsel also had contended that in view of Section 96(4) of the CPC, which was introduced by the CPC (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976, the appellate court can entertain an appeal and, rightly, the same was entertained and disposed of in accordance with law. The learned counsel had also drawn my attention to certain decisions, which had been relied upon by the appellate court while dealing with the question of limitation. The learned counsel also had contended that Section 96(4) of the CPC should be read along with Section 25 of the Act and Section 96(4) of the C.P.C. and this provision provide for independent remedies. The mere fact that a revisional remedy is provided for u/s 25 of the Act will not operate as bar to the appellate court entertaining an appeal u/s 96(4) of the CPC.

It is not in dispute that the suit claim itself is Rs.10,000/-. As against the decree made in a small cause suit, an appeal was entertained and decided and the aggrieved party had preferred the present revision. Section 96(4) of the CPC introduced by the Amendment act 104 of 1976 reads as follows:

"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."

The appellate court, in view of the fact that inasmuch as the question of limitation is involved in the matter, had framed the said point for consideration and had entertained the appeal and had decided the appeal. In INDIAN BANK VS. V.A. BALASUBRAMANIA GURUKAL (1.), while dealing with Section 96 (4) of the CPC in a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, the question whether provisions of Usurious Loans Act attracted to interest charged by Nationalized Bank to agriculturist, was held to be a question of law and hence appeal was held to be maintainable.

In THIMMALA KISHTA REDDY VS. SIRPURAM HANMAIAH (2.), it was held:

" Sec.96 of the CPC is subject to the express provisions made in any other law for the time being in force. An appeal is prohibited on grounds of fact; but it is still permitted on grounds of law where the value or the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs.3,000/-. When under the Hyderabad Small Causes Courts Act, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court at the time of filing the suit was only to the extent of Rs.1,000/- then the subsequent legislation cannot convert a pending original suit into a small cause suit by increasing the valuation thereof to more than Rs.1,000/- when the Hyderabad Small Causes Courts act still remains unchanged. At the time when the suit was filed, the small causes Court could hear suits, the valuation of which was under Rs.1,000/- but when the valuation of the present suit was more than Rs.1,000/- the suit cannot be considered to be a small cause suit."

In the light of the above discussion, since the appeal was entertained on question of limitation, it cannot be said that the entertaining of the appeal by the appellate court is without jurisdiction. The aggrieved party, instead of preferring a second appeal, had preferred the present revision in view of the objection taken by the office in this regard. Section 100 of the CPC deals with the Second Appeal and Section 102 of the CPC specifies Second Appeal on no other grounds. But, it is pertinent to note that u/s 102 CPC, it is specified that no Second Appeal shall lie 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 Rs.3,000/-.

In the light of the specific provision, I am of the considered opinion that as against the judgment in A.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, the Second Appeal alone is maintainable. Inasmuch as, in view of the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition, a direction is given to convert the Civil Revision Petition into a Second appeal, the parties are at liberty to raise all the questions and argue all the questions afresh. The revision petitioner shall comply with all the requisite formalities as per law and after the revision petitioner complies with all the necessary formalities, the Office is directed to number the same as Second Appeal and post the matter in regular course for hearing before the appropriate bench.