1. This is a defendant's Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. 9 of 1887) against the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/ Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby his application (49-Ga) for framing the issues has been rejected.
2. The essential facts are; the applicant / revisionist is a tenant of the premises bearing Municipal No. 361, Harrisganj, Cantt., Kanpur Nagar. The landlord-opposite party gave a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. 4 of 1882) to the tenant-revisionist for eviction and arrear of rent. The landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 79 of 2007 in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. The applicant-defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement on 23 December 2009.
3. On 17 July 2010 the tenant-revisionist moved an application 49-Ga for framing the issues. The said application has been rejected by the Court of Small Causes vide impugned order dated 31.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved the tenant/ revisionist has filed the present revision.
4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that a conjoint reading of the provisions of law contained in Section 15 of the Act No. 9 of 1887 and Order XIV Rules 4 & 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC") makes it clear that in the proceedings before the Judge, Small Cause Court, the issue should be framed before proceeding to decide the suit. He further urged that point for determination referred to in Rule 4(1) of the Order XX of CPC enjoins the Small Cause Court to frame the issue as the words "points for determination" have been used in the said Rule.
5. I have heard Sri Vijay Kumar Ojha, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
6. The only issue, which falls for determination in the present revision, is whether in a suit filed under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is it imperative upon the Judge, Small Cause Court to frame the issues.
7. The Chapter III of the Act No. 9 of 1887 deals with the jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. Section 15 enjoins that all suits of civil nature, of which the value does not exceed Rs. 500/- shall be cognizable by the court of small causes. (vide Uttar Pradesh Act 17 of 1991 in Section 15, for sub sections (2) and (3), has been inserted. The Section 15, as applicable in the State of U.P., reads thus;
"15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes.---(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.
(3) Subject as aforesaid, the 1[State Government] may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order.2 State Amendment 3Uttar Pradesh.---In section 15, for sub-sections (2) and (3), substitute the following:-
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.
Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to twenty-five thousand rupees.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression 'building' has the same meaning as in Art. (4) in the Second Schedule."
8. From a perusal of the said Section it is manifest that the Small Cause Court has limited pecuniary jurisdiction. The intent of the legislature is manifest that the suits of small causes should be decided expeditiously. With the said view of the matter the detail procedure of the regular suit is not applicable.
9. This Court in the case of Dau Dayal Tandon v. Addl. District Judge, Naini Tal and others, 1982 (1) ARC 356 has held that Section 15 of the Act No. 9 of 1887 provides that the proceedings shall be summary in nature. Recently the said view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Yasin and another v. Murari Lal, 2013 (2) ARC 376. Relevant paragraph in the case of Yasin (supra) reads as under;
"4. The suit in question is one under Section 15 of the Act and is of a summary nature. It is well settled that in a suit of such a nature it is not mandatory to frame issues. The provisions of Order XIV C.P.C. relating to settlement of issues are not applicable to proceedings before Small Cause Court in view of Order L Rule 1(a) C.P.C. as has been held in Dau Dayal Tandon Vs. Additional District Judge, Naini Tal and others 1982 ARC 356 and a series of decision thereafter. The only thing required is that the court below on consideration of the plaint case and the defence may indicate the points which arise for consideration."
10. As regards the submission of Sri Asthana that the Order XX Rule 4 and 5 of CPC makes it clear that the Judge, Small Cause Courts should frame the issue for determination hardly merit acceptance. The Order XX Rule 4 and 5 of CPC reads as under;
"44. Judgments of Small Cause Courts.---(1) Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.
(2) Judgments of other Courts.---Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.
5. Court to state its decision on each issue.---In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
11. A simple reading of aforesaid Rules 4 and 5 make it clear that the judgment of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon, whereas judgements of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.
12. The distinction between sub rule (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of Order XX of the CPC by itself is sufficient to indicate that the Small Causes Court is a summary proceedings and detailed reasons are not required to be given in judgements. The point for determination does not need for framing an issue and there is no need for the procedure applicable for the regular civil suits. In case the detail procedure of regular suit is also followed in the matter of the Small Causes Court, the very object of the Act No. 9 of 1887 shall be frustrated. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist does not stand to reasons.
13. After careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that framing of the issue in the suits under the Act No. 9 of 1887 is not mandatory. It is a discretion of the court to formulate some points for determination, if it needs it is necessary to meet the ends of justice, but framing of the issue like a regular suit, as stated above, would be against the object of the Act to dispose of small matters expeditiously.
14. Resultantly, the order of the court below does not suffer any error hence Civil Revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 05.09.2014 DS/-