Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision Petition No. 1 of 1952, decided on 7th May 1952, under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act read with section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 33 of the British Baluchistan Courts Regulation against the order of the Senior Sub‑Judge, and Judge Small Cause Court, Quetta, dated the 24th December 1951.

O. VII, r. 10‑Suit not maintainable in Small Cause Court heard and dismissed by Judge Small Cause Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction --Plaint should have been returned for presentation in proper Court:

Muhammad Ahmad Mirza for Petitioner.

Iqtedar‑e‑Alam for Respondent.

This is a revision petition against an order of the Senior Sub‑Judge in Baluchistan and Judge Small Cause Court, Quetta‑Pishin and Chagai Districts, dated 24th December 1951, in Small Cause Case No. 10 of 1951, according to which a suit brought by the plaintiff-- petitioner Abdul Wahid Khan against respondent Ghulam Nabi for a sum of Rs. 210 on account of rent of a plot of land alleged to have been leased to the defendant‑respondent on 1st May 1948, on a monthly rent of Rs. 15 was dismissed with costs on the ground that a suit for rent of a plot of land was not a suit for house rent and as such was not triable by a Court of Small Causes.

In his review application under Order 47, rule 1, C. P. C. the petitioner moved the Judge Small Cause Court that as the learned Judge had held that he could not try the suit as a small cause case the plaint should be returned to the petitioner for presentation before a proper Court. The Trial Judge did not allow this prayer mainly on the ground that the suit had been pending in that Court for a long time and this plea was not raised until after the disposal of the suit.

I have heard the parties' counsel at length. The only question requiring my decision is whether the plaint should or should not have been returned to the plaintiff‑petitioner in view of the finding of the lower Court that the suit was not triable by a Judge Small Cause Court. I am also called upon by the petitioner to revise the lower Court's order dated 15^th September 1951, whereby the suit was dismissed. I must say here that I am in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge that a suit for rent of a plot of land is not a suit for house rent and so a Court of Small Causes cannot take cognizance of it. I however disagree with him in view of the provisions of Order 7, rule 10, C. P. C., that after taking this view the learned Judge should have refused to return the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the proper Court merely on the ground that the petitioner had himself brought the suit in question as a small cause case and had not raised this point until after the disposal of the case. If the suit was not of the nature of a small cause case and the learned Judge could not take cognizance of it, as held by him it was only right that he should have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court.

I accordingly revise the judgment of the lower Court dated 15th September 1951, to this extent only and direct that the plaint be returned to the petitioner for presentation before a competent Court. The costs shall follow the final result of the case.

A. H. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.