Whether small causes court can grant interim compensation during pendency of L.E.&C. Suit?

 In my opinion, the approach of the Appellate Court to say the
least is perverse. After extracting Section 74, still, the Appellate Court
observed that the question of awarding damages on the basis of breach
of contract is a matter of evidence and is to be appreciated in the
proceeding and the burden is on the party, who claimed damages. So at
this stage, the question of awarding damages does not arise. In my
opinion, the said finding is in the teeth of Section 74 of the Act. This is
more so when in paragraph 21, the Appellate Court observed that “At
this stage, we are bound by the facts that the leave and licence
agreement has been registered by the parties to the proceedings. So
parties to the proceedings are bound by the leave and licence
agreement”. In view thereof, the impugned order passed by the
Appellate Court deserves to be set aside 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10718 OF 2018

Ida Celene Mathias Vs. Mobin Ahmed Khan 

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2018

Print Page

Whether court can grant inquiry in to mesne profits even if is not claimed by plaintiff?

 Inspite   of   valid   termination   of   tenancy,   the
appellant­UCO   Bank   remained   in   occupation   of   the

premises and the trial court, in consonance with the
prayers made in the suit, directed to hold an inquiry
under   Order   20   Rule   10   of   Civil   Procedure   Code   to
determine the rate and quantum of mesne profits to be
recovered from the appellant­UCO Bank.  I do not find
any substance in the submission of learned counsel for
the appellant­UCO Bank that the respondents­original
plaintiffs did not pray for such an inquiry for the mesne
profit   under   Order   20   Rule   10   of   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure and in absence of a specific prayer for inquiry
into mesne profit, the Trial Court while deciding Small
Cause Suit No. 39 of 2001,   directed an inquiry into
mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Even in the case  of Gulamhusain Asgaraly
Vahanvaty (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for
appellant­UCO Bank, this Court has taken a view that
the relief of mesne profits is a consequential relief to the
main relief and the trial court has to pass an order of
holding   inquiry   into   mesne   profit   when   the   suit   is
decreed.   If such a suit for recovery of possession is
dismissed,   the   question   of   payment   of   mesne   profits
does not arise and therefore, very often, issue of mesne

profits   is   not   framed   since   there   is   an   independent
provision in the CPC for holding an inquiry for mesne
profits,   and   only   when   the   suit   is   decreed   further
consequential relief is to be granted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 652 OF 2008

 Uco Bank V  Asaram s/o Mohanlal Samdani,

CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Citation: 2017(2) ALLMR 92

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

Civil Judge invested with jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes under S 28(1) of Bombay Civil Courts Act can function as a Court of Small Causes to extent of pecuniary limits

A Civil Judge invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under Section 28(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act can function as a Court of Small Causes to the extent of pecuniary limits prescribed under Section 28(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act and it shall not have jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suits covered by Section 26(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits.

Bombay High Court

Radheshyam  Zumbarlal Chandak vs The District Judge, Amravati on 5 October, 2010

Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, Ravi K. Deshpande

Citation: 2010(6)BomCR5, 2010(112)BOMLR4412, 2011(1)MhLj399

Print Page