9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to 1/6th share in a chit for which the monthly premium was ₹ 300, namely, ₹ 50 per mensem and he had paid actually a sum of ₹ 758.42 upto 25th May, 1976 in the course of 21 months as premium and that the defendants did not conduct the chit later and he was, therefore, en-titled to recover the aforesaid sum of ₹ 856.96. The respondent had sent a notice Exhibit A-1, dated 15th July, 1977 before the institution of the suit and it was returned unserved. He alleged that the chit was conducted by the first petitioner as the foreman and that the second petitioner the brother-in-law of the first petitioner was the real foreman and he therefore filed the suit against both the petitioners. 3. The second petitioner disclaim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners submits that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the second petitioner was the real foreman is totally not acceptable having regard to the admission made by P.W. 1 in cross-examination, as mentioned by the trial Court, that he had no dealing with the second petitioner at all and had not even sent any suit notice to the second petitioner. The learned Counsel further submits that in view of Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal was not competent and it was not open to the learned Subordinate Judge to go into the question of facts and come to the conclusion that Exhibits R-2 and B-6, which had been believed by the trial Court to be genuine, are not genuine by disbelieving the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e object of this section, as it seems to me is to take away the right of second or special appeal where the value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed ₹ 500 in the case of all suits which as regards their subject-matter would be within the jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes but which are outside that jurisdiction by reason of the amount claimed being beyond the pecuniary limit of the Small Cause jurisdiction ....By reason of the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court being limited as regard amount, if the amount claimed exceeds the limit, although the suit is "of a nature cognizable" by a Small Cause Court, it is not cognizable, if a suit is cognizable, it must be of a nature cognizable. But if it is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uits by a District Munsifs Court because there is no Small Cause Court with local and pecuniary jurisdiction competent to try them. In these suits a first appeal is allowed by Section 540, Civil Procedure Code, but a second appeal is disallowed by Section 586, Civil Procedure Code, which enacted that "no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed ₹ 500". When the Legislature in this section speaks of the suits "of a nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes," T think it means suits which the Legislature has determined to be suits of such a character or nature that they are, or may be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lature when it enacted that such suits might be tried by Courts of Small Causes provided the local Government should take appropriate action to establish the Courts or to invest them with the necessary powers. If such action be taken, then the suits are not only of a nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, but become actually cognizable by those Courts. If, however, such action is not taken, then the suits do not become actually cognizable by such Courts, -but their nature or character as originally declared by the Legislature remains unaffected. 9. In view of the observation made in this Full Bench decision, it is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that merely because the District Munsif, in whose Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
