Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 24 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Ramaswami Muthirian And Anr. vs The Firm Of Ki Karu, Rama Ki Represented ... on 1 February, 1935
171 (F.B.), as not being inconsistent with Ramaswami Muthirian v. Arunachalam Chettiar (1935) 69 M.L.J. 443. This Full Bench held that a suit instituted as a small cause suit, if tried as an original suit in the circumstances mentioned in Section 35 when there was no other Judge in the local areas with adequate small cause powers to try it as a small cause suit, should be regarded as an original suit, and the decree passed in it would be appealable. I respectfully agree with this view and hold that Section 27 of, the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act does not operate in the circumstances of the case to bar any appeal from the order of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvarur, refusing to set aside the ex parte decree in question.
Section 16 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
D. Chockalingam Chettiar vs T.S.P.L.P. Palaniappa Chettiar And ... on 24 January, 1938
6. On a consideration of the provisions referred to above, it appears to me that the order of the District Munsif's Court,. Tiruvarur, refusing to set aside the ex parte decree must be regarded as an order passed by the Court in the exercise of its. original civil jurisdiction. Under Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the respondent was entitled to have his application for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court, taken up and disposed of by the District Munsif's Court aforesaid, and that Court dealt with it and could only deal with it, on the original side of its jurisdiction. As already observed, this section does not require that the Court dealing with a proceeding thereunder should be competent to deal with it as a Small Cause Court; nor dots it provide that such Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. It is therefore difficult to see how the position could be altered by the District Court purporting to transfer the respondent's application to the same District Munsif's Court. As already indicated, no order of transfer was necessary to enable the latter Court to deal with the respondent's application and the order passed by the District Court must, in the circumstances, be regarded as in the nature of an administrative direction issued to facilitate the transmission of the records of the proceeding, and not as an order under Section 24, bringing Sub-section (4) of that section into operation.
Bhagwati Pande vs Badri Pande And Anr. on 10 July, 1931
Though the learned Judge referred to the decision of Stone, J., in Ramaswami Muthirian v. Arunachalam Chettiar (1935) 69 M.L.J. 443, it is evident that he did not rely upon the wide general observations contained in that case as he referred to the Full Bench decision in Bhagwati Pande v. Badri Pande (1931) I.L.R. 54 All.
Kollipara Seetapaty vs Kantipati Subbayya on 5 March, 1909
In the Full Bench case in Kollipara Seethapathy v. Kantipati Subbayya (1909) 20 M.L.J. 718 : I.L.R. 33 Mad. 323 (F.B.), it appears that the District Munsif who tried the suit on the original side had jurisdiction to try it as a small cause suit and it was held that the Court must be regarded as having tried it as a Court of Small Causes. The case was not one under Section 35 and it does not support the wide proposition laid down by the learned Judge.
Selvarayan Samson, By Agent A. ... vs S. Amalorpavanadham on 8 December, 1927
9. The question next arises whether an appeal lies from the said order under Order 43, Rule (1)(d). The petitioner contends that the qualifying words "in a case open to appeal" should be understood as referring to the appealability of the decree which is sought to be set aside and as in this case, the decree which was originally passed by a Court of Small Causes, was not appealable, the order refusing to set it aside was also not appealable under this clause. This contention is supported by the decision of a single Judge reported in Hira Lai v. Jhunni Lal (1922) 20 A.L.J. 208, but a Bench of this Court in Selvarayan Samson v. Amalorpavanadham (1927) 55 M.L.J. 262 was not inclined to accept that restricted interpretation of those words. The question was whether an appeal lay against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed on an application filed under para. 20 of Schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code and registered as a suit. It was argued that no appeal lay as it was not a "case open to appeal" as the decree passed was not in excess of the award and therefore not appealable. The learned Judges observed:
Gopalakrishna Nayakar vs Madhavanayaki Ammal (Deceased) And ... on 2 October, 1936
The decision of Cornish, J., in Gopalakrishna Naicker v. Madhavanayaki Ammal (1937) 1 M.L.J. 14 : 44 L.W. 874, is also distinguishable on the same ground, namely, that the Court which ultimately tried the suit had jurisdiction to try it as a small cause suit.
1