1975 (5) TMI 89 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the court to try the suit involving claims not excepted by Schedule II under Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the court
The plaintiff filed a suit in 1963 claiming various amounts, including wages and compensation. During the trial, the defendant raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court to try claims not excepted by Schedule II under Section 16 of the Act. The defendant contended that such claims should be tried by a Small Causes Court, not the court of the learned Munsif. The defendant relied on legal precedents to support this argument.

Issue 2: Objection to jurisdiction
The defendant argued that the claims mentioned in issue No. 6 were not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 15 of the Act. The defendant contended that the court had no jurisdiction to try claims exceeding the limit set by Section 16 of the Act and that such claims should be tried by a Small Causes Court. The defendant cited relevant case law to support this argument.

Issue 3: Plaintiff's objection to belated jurisdictional objection
The plaintiff opposed the defendant's objection, stating that the objection to jurisdiction was raised belatedly and should not be allowed at this stage of the proceedings. The plaintiff argued that the objection should have been raised earlier and that the court should not entertain jurisdictional objections raised at a late stage. The plaintiff cited legal precedents to support this argument.

Issue 4: Court's authority to examine jurisdiction
The court noted that the objection raised by the defendant related to the court's jurisdiction to try the suit and that such objections could be examined at any stage of the proceedings. The court held that even if the objection was not raised earlier, the court had the authority to consider jurisdictional issues and pass appropriate orders.

Issue 5: Court's decision on jurisdiction
The court analyzed the provisions of the Act and relevant case law to determine that the claims mentioned in issue No. 6 were not exempted by Schedule II. The court concluded that claims not exceeding the specified limit should be tried by a Small Causes Court. The court held that allowing such claims to be tried in ordinary courts would circumvent the law. Therefore, the court set aside the impugned order and made the rule absolute.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that claims not excepted by Schedule II should be tried by a Small Causes Court. The court set aside the order challenged by the defendant and emphasized the need for expedited proceedings in the trial court. The plaintiff was given the option to relinquish the claims in issue No. 6 to allow the remaining claim to be tried by the learned Munsif.