Whether Civil Judge Junior Division can try rent suit as a regular suit?

 In the facts of present case, even if it is presumed that after Rent Act, all Courts invested with jurisdiction of Small Cause by High Court have lost their status as such, still as both the suits filed by respondents are before Civil Judge (Junior Division) which is also invested with Small Cause jurisdiction, it satisfies even the requirement of section 33(1)(c). Procedure to be followed by all Courts functioning under section 33 of Rent Act is as prescribed by rules framed under Rent Act. Hence, mere categorization of these suits as Regular Civil Suits or Small Cause Suits is not relevant for the purposes of adjudication at all.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. Nos. 3003 and 3030 of 2006

Decided On: 25.09.2006

 Devidas Mohanlal Gupta Vs.  Ajesh Suresh Sarvaiyya

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1329/2006

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to convert small cause suit in to regular suit if issue of title is not involved?

 Under Section 33 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, a Court invested with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes with respect to exercise of that jurisdiction, and the same Court with respect to exercise of its jurisdiction in Suit of a civil nature which are not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, shall, for the purposes of the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure Code be deemed to be different Courts. Thus, Judge Small Causes Court though may also be the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) it could not have converted the SCC Suit into a regular Civil Suit. The Judge Small Causes Court could have only returned the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act if there was a dispute regarding the title of the property in question. In this case, there was no such dispute raised by the tenant. He had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, but had alleged that he was not in default and the rent had not fallen into arrears.

42. The order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court impugned in this writ petition could not have been passed converting the Suit by exercising inherent power under Section 151 CPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3634 of 2018

Decided On: 10.01.2019

 Shafiuddin  Vs. Mashur Alam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

Citation: AIR 2019(ALL) 155

Print Page

What is difference in procedure for setting aside exparte decree in regular suit and summary suit?

The other argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC the defendant is not only required to prove that the summons prescribed in Form IV of Appendix B of CPC Along with plaint was not served on him or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from entering appearance before the court within the stipulated period of 10 days from the date of service but in addition thereto the defendant was further required to rove that it had substantial defense. It was contended that the ex-parte decree could be set aside only if special circumstances were shown by the defendant. The counsel for the petitioner has cited B.L. Gupta v. Smt. Sunita Khanna. 1994 4 Ad (Del) 842 in support of his argument. The argument has force The relevant provisions of Rule 4 of Order 37 CPC in accordance with which an ex-parte decree under Order 37 CPC could be set aside is extracted below:

"4. Power to set aside decree- After decree the court may, under special circumstances set said the decree and if necessary stay or set aside execution., and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit."

13. It is clear from this provision that it is not identical or synonym to the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC where an ex-parte decree in a suit could be set aside on sufficient cause being shown for non-appearance of the defendant on the date of hearing. For setting aside a decree under Order 37 CPC the defendant has to establish "special circumstances" which cannot be equated with 'sufficient cause" envisaged under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Moreover, before a decree passed under Order 37 CPC is set aside under this rule the defendant has to prove 91) that the summons in Form 4 of Appendix B of CPC was not served or that he was prevented by sufficient reason from entering appearance within a period of 10 days from the date of service as required by Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC; and (2) that the defendant has been able to disclose such facts as may be deemed sufficient and reasonable to entitle him to defend the suit. In other words, the defendant has to prove substantial defense to raise in the suit of which he has been deprived of by the ex-parte decree. In addition to establishing the fact that there was no due service of requisite summons and the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause in entering appearance within the period of 10 days from the date of receipt of summons the defendant was further required to disclose in his application such fact as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend the suit. The defendant was to satisfy the court that the facts disclose by him in the application indicated that he had a good substantial; and meritorious defense to raise and the defense which is entitled to put up was not frivolous or vexatious or in other words, bogus. illusory or practically moonshine. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

C.R. No. 1168/1998

Decided On: 15.03.2002

A.R. Electronic Private Ltd.
Vs.
 R.K. Graphics Pvt. Ltd.

Coram:
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.

Print Page

Whether CJJD and CJSD can try suit under maharashtra rent control Act as regular suit?

 The conclusions of the learned Principal District Judge that the
Civil Judge (Junior Division) could not have tried the civil suit as he was not
invested with powers of the Small Causes Court and he could not have
entertained   and   tried   the   civil   suit   valued   above   Rs.6,000/­,   are   also
unsustainable. The learned Principal District Judge has committed an error in

recording that the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999 are attracted. In the present case, the provisions of Section
33(1)(c)   of   the   Maharashtra   Rent   Control   Act,   1999   will   be   applicable.
Section 33(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 lays  down that
if the valuation of the civil suit is upto the limit of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Judge (Junior Division), then he can entertain and decide the civil suit.  The
Division   Bench   of   this   Court,   in   the   judgment   given   in   the   case   of
Radheshyam Zumbarlal Chandak  (supra) has clarified that if the Court of
Small Causes is not established at a particular place or the High Court,
exercising powers under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act,
has not invested any Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small
Causes for the trial of civil suits cognizable by such Courts, then the  ordinary
original civil jurisdiction conferred upon the Civil Judge (Junior Division) or
the Civil Judge (Senior Division) will be available to the parties and the civil
suit will have to be tried by the Civil Judge as Regular Civil Suit depending
upon the pecuniary limits of the Civil Judge as provided by Section 24 of the
Maharashtra   Civil   Courts   Act.     The   conclusions   of   the   learned   Principal
District Judge are unsustainable.  
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3305  OF 2015

Mangesh Vasant Ajmire, V  Pradeepkumar Bansilal Mohta, 

    CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
     DATED   : JULY 05, 2016.
Citation: 2016 (5) MHLJ 476 Bom

Print Page

When civil Judge should try small cause suit as regular suit?

The submission made on behalf of the petitioner about
the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge while deciding
the civil suit as Regular Civil Suit also cannot be considered at this
stage. The petitioner had not raised any objection before the
learned Trial Judge and no ground is raised before the District
Court in the appeal. In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated
that Court of Small Causes are functioning, and except for this
bare statement on the record, no material is placed on record to

substantiate the challenge as sought to be made. The respondent
nos. 1(a) to 1(g) have specifically stated in their additional
affidavit that the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Washim
was vested with the powers of the Small Causes Court and
consequently he could have tried the civil suit as small cause civil
suit valued up to Rs. 12,000/- for the purposes of pecuniary
jurisdiction. It is submitted that as the valuation of the suit is
Rs. 46,000/- that is more than Rs. 12,000/-, the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) has rightly tried it as the Regular Civil Suit. Shri
C.A. Joshi, the learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1(a) to
1(g) has relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court given
in the case of Radheshyam Zumbarlal Chandak Vs. District Judge,
Amravati and another (supra). In paragraph Nos. 35 and 36, it is
recorded as follows:-
“The question is about a Civil Judge
exercising jurisdiction of a Court of Small
Causes for trial of such suits cognizable by
such Court, invested in it by the High Court
in exercise of its powers under Section 28(1)
of the Civil Courts Act. Section 28(1)
authorizes the High Court to invest any Civil
Judge with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small
Causes not exceeding rupees twelve
thousand in case of a Civil Judge, Senior
Division, and in case of a Civil Judge, Junior
Division, rupees six thousand. We have
already held that a Civil Judge invested with

the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes
under Section 28(1) of the Civil Courts Act
shall have jurisdiction to entertain, try and
decide the civil Suits contemplated by
section 26(1) of the Small Cause Courts Act
to the extent of the pecuniary limits
prescribed under section 28(1) of the Civil
Courts Act. Section 32 of the Small Cause
Courts Act states that so much of Chapters
III, VI and IV-A1, as relate to the practice and
procedure of the Courts of Small Causes,
shall apply to the courts invested by or under
any enactment for the time being in force
with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small
Causes so far as regards the exercise of that
jurisdiction by those courts. Similarly, the
provisions of section 7, read with the
provisions of Order 50 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, exclude the application of certain
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to a
Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court
of Small Causes. In view of this, the
procedure to be followed for deciding such
suits by a Civil Judge would be summary in
nature and not as a regular civil suit to be
tried in accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure”.
36.”If the value of the subject-matter of the
suit covered by section 26(1) of the Small
Cause Courts Act exceeds the pecuniary
limits specified under section 28(1) of the
Civil Courts Act, then a Civil Judge invested

with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small
Causes shall not have jurisdiction to
entertain, try and decide such suit, as a
small cause suit of a summary nature, but it
will have to be decided as a regular suit and
the procedure for deciding such suit will be
governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and
not by the procedure prescribed under the
Small Cause Courts Act. The reason for this
is that the High Court is not competent under
section 28(1) of the Civil Courts Act to invest
any Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of a
Court of Small Causes beyond the pecuniary
limits specified in that section.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3470 of 2003
Shri Suresh S/o Manikchand Patni,

Versus
Kachrulal s/o Shankarlal Sarda,

  CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J
 DATE : JULY 7, 2014.

Print Page