Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jagdish Flour And Oil Mills And Ors. vs Shri Ram Laduram on 7 September, 1965
ORDER Jagat Narayan, J.
1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of Judge, Small Cause Court Jaipur City, refusing to try an adjustment pleaded by them in their written statement on the ground that the value of the entire amount involved exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs supplied Til worth Rs. 6,665 to the defendants who paid Rs. 6,350 towards the price of it leaving a balance of Rs. 315. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the defendants for its recovery. The defendants pleaded that this amount was paid by adjustment. Their case was that there was another contract for the supply of Til between the parties which the plaintiffs failed to fulfil and that there, was an agreement between the parties before the institution of the present suit under which the plaintiffs agreed to pay Rs. 605 to the defendants as damages for breach of that contract further it was agreed that out of this amount a sum of Rs. 315 would be adjustable towards the price of Til already supplied by the plaintiffs' leaving a balance of Rs. 289 which the plaintiffs promised to pay to the defendants.
The defendants pleaded adjustments to the extent of Rs. 315 in this suit and brought a second suit for the recovery of Rs. 289 against the plaintiffs as this amount was not paid.
3. The trial court held that what the defendants had in fact pleaded was a counter-claim to the extent of Rs. 605 and as its pecuniary jurisdiction extends up to Rs. 500 if refused to try the counter-claim. It purported to rely on the decision in Hoe Moc v. L. M. Seedat, AIR 1925 Rang 22.
4. I have carefully read that decision. In my opinion it is distinguishable on facts. A sum of Rs. 3,561-1-0 was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had only paid Rs. 1,600. The defendant on the other hand alleged that he paid Rs. 3,000. Further he claimed set off to the extent of Rs. 1,005-15-0 which he claimed was due on a promissory note. The jurisdiction of the court extended up to Rs. 2,000 only. It was held that the court had no jurisdiction to try the counter claim. The documents on the basis of which further payments were alleged to have been made by the defendants were in fact promissory notes. In these circumstances the Court held that the total set off claimed in the case amounted to more than Rs. 2,000.
5. In the present case what is claimed is an adjustment. The difference between an adjustment and a set oft or counter-claim is that an adjustment lakes place before the suit, whereas when a defendant claims a set oft he claims an adjustment in the suit itself. In this connection the following decisions may be referred to:
Konda Pentiah v. Chenchu Rangiah, (S) AIR 1955 Hyd 176; Govt. of the United States of Travancore and Cochin v. Rank of Cochin Ltd., AIR 1954 Trav Co 243, Somraj v. Jethmal, AIR 1957 Raj 392; Ramanuj Das v. Ram Samukh Das, AIR 1940 All 393 and Punjab Electric Power Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Kishan, AIR 1937 Lah. 62:
In other words a plea of adjustment is tantamount to a plea of payment and no court-fee is payable. The trial court erred in compelling the defendants to pay court-fee on the sum of Rs. 315 which is also refundable to them.
6. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the trial court dated 24-11-64 and direct it to try the adjustment pleaded by the defendants in their written statement.
7. The costs of this revision application shall abide the final result of the suit.