Madras High Court
Srinivasa Charlu vs Balaji Rau And Ors. on 13 October, 1896
JUDGMENT
1. It is urged before us that the ruling of this Court in Sadasook Gambir Chund v. Kannayya I.L.R. 19 Mad. 96 with regard to the powers of the Full Bench of the Presidency Small Cause Court to revise a decree of a single Judge or order a new trial under Section 37 of Act XV of 1882 as it stood before amendment, is inapplicable since the amendment of the Act by Section 13 of Act I of 1895.
2. We are unable to find any ground whatever for this contention. The alterations relied on are two in number. The first is merely an alteration in the title of the chapter. It is now entitled "new trials and appeals" instead of "new trials and rehearing."
3. The change is intended merely to express more fully the subject of the chapter, for it contains the very important provision that "every decree and order of the Small Cause Court in a suit shall be final and conclusive" in other words, that no appeal shall lie. It is futile to argue that, because the word "appeals" appears in the title of the chapter, it must therefore allow appeals, notwithstanding the express words of Section 37.
4. The second alteration is that in the present Section 38, the words "where a suit has been contested" are introduced before the provisions which relate to the cases in which a new trial or revision may be allowed. The effect of this addition is to restrict, not to extend, the powers given in the Section. Under the unamended law those powers might have been exercised in any proper case without regard to the question whether the suit was contested or uncontested. Under the amended law those powers can only be exercised in contested cases. In other respects, the terms of the Section remain exactly as they were before.
5 .Thus the effect of the recent alteration is not to extend the powers of revision, as urged by the appellant, but, on the contrary, to limit them to contested cases. The limitations on those powers, which were shown in the ruling of this Court in the case above referred to, remain unaffected by the recent change in the law, and in addition there is now imposed this further limitation, viz., that the powers shall not be exercised at all in cases that have not been contested.
6 . There is thus no ground for our interference with the order of the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court.
7. We dismiss this petition.