9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to try the suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits and damages. Analysis: The case involved a revision by the defendants against the order of the Additional District Judge decreeing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment in a suit tried as a small cause court suit. The main issue was whether the Small Cause Court Judge had inherent jurisdiction to try the suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits and damages. The suit was initially filed in the court of Munsif, Moradabad, for ejectment of the defendants from a shop and for recovery of mesne profits and damages. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were unauthorized occupants of the shop and sought ejectment and damages on that basis. The suit was transferred to the Small Causes Court after the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972). The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of mesne profits and damages only, but on revision, the Additional District Judge granted relief for ejectment as well. The question of jurisdiction depended on the nature of the suit as originally brought and the allegations made in the plaint. The relevant provision of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, specified suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. The suit in question was not cognizable by the Small Causes Court as per Article 4 of the Act, which excluded suits for possession of immovable property or recovery of interest in such property. The suit was based on the termination of a tenancy, and the relationship between the parties was not that of lessor and lessee. The court held that the suit was rightly instituted in the court of Munsif and its transfer to the Small Causes Court was illegal. The lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Small Causes Court rendered the decree passed by the lower courts a nullity. The court rejected the argument that the decree could not be a nullity based on previous judgments, emphasizing that the Small Causes Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to try suits excepted from its purview. The court cited precedents to support its conclusion that lack of inherent jurisdiction makes a decree null and void. The court also addressed the issue of exercising discretion in favor of the applicants due to the prolonged litigation, distinguishing previous cases where discretion was refused. Ultimately, the court allowed the revision, set aside the decree of the lower courts, and directed the re-registration and fresh trial of the suit by the court of Munsif, Moradabad.
|
