9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (5) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 4572.34 giving a credit of ₹ 1142 towards payment of claims (a) and (b) above. It appears that the trial of the suit commenced as early as February 4, 1967 and thereafter on the defendant's application in course of hearing two new issues were framed on February 12, 1973. Issues Nos. 6 and 7 so framed are as follows; (6) Is the plaintiff's claim regarding ₹ 500/-and ₹ 120/-(?) mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the plaint are cognizable by this Court (7) Is the plaint liable to be returned. This order framing additional issues was not challenged by the plaintiff and the issues were taken up for hearing on January 10, 1974 and by the impugned order the learned Munsif held that the two claims mentioned in issue No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Mr. Bhattacharya accordingly contended that, in view of the position that the two claims of issue No. 6 were not excepted by the Second Schedule, such claim could only be tried by a court of Small Causes. ( 3. ) Mr . Arun Kishore Das Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff opposite party has submitted that the suit was filed as early as in 1963 and came up for peremptory hearing after protracted adjournments caused by the defendant. At no point of time the objection as to jurisdiction was taken. Even in the written statement there was no whisper about it and accordingly the defendant should not be permitted to take this objection at this stage. In support he relied on a decision in Ranjit Kumar Pal Choudhury v. Murari Mohan Pal C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken in toe written statement. ( 6. ) Coming to the question of jurisdiction it is clear that the claims referred to in issue No. 6 are not excepted by Schedule II. As such if the claim is not above ₹ 500/-as laid down in Section 16 of the Act suit for such claims can only be tried by the court of small causes. To hold otherwise would be to allow a party to evade the provisions of law as has been held in Maharaja Bahadur Singh's case referred to above. The learned Munsif was in error in thinking that since the Civil P. C. allows a joinder of causes of action under Order 2, Rule 3 the plaintiff at his option can join different causes of action and if the claim exceeds the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court it may be tried b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
