# Shri Shobhit Nigam Revisionist v. Smt. Batulan & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 619
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-29
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-shobhit-nigam-revisionist-v-smt-batulan-anr-44364
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

8 All. Shri Shobhit Nigam Vs Smt. Batulan & Anr.
619
(2016) 8 ILRA 619
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

S.C.C. Revision No.- 278 Of 2016

Shri Shobhit Nigam ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Batulan & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Revisionist:
Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Parties:
Pushkar Srivasatava, Arvind Srivastava

Legislation referred to : Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Ss. 15, 15(2) (proviso), Second
Schedule; U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972; U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991; U.P. Civil Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2015 (w.e.f. 07.12.2015); Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 - Ss. 17, 25,
25(1), 25(2); Constitution of India - Arts. 226, 227; High Court Notification dated 08.02.1991; High Court
Administrative Committee Resolution dated 20.05.1994.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS :
Civil Revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 challenging the judgment
and order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge in SSC Suit No. 16 of 2011 (Smt. Batulan
v. Ayub Khan and another) - a lessor-lessee suit for rent and eviction - on the ground that by virtue of the
U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (w.e.f. 07.12.2015), the Additional District Judge had ceased to have
pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the said suit, which fell within the enhanced jurisdiction of the Small Causes
Court presided over by the Civil Judge, Senior Division.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND :
The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh, classifies suits
cognizable by the Court of Small Causes into two broad categories: (i) all civil suits up to a specified pecuniary
value; and (ii) suits by the lessor for eviction of the lessee from a building after determination of lease and for
arrears of rent. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court over lessor-lessee suits has been
enhanced progressively by successive U.P. amendment acts, as follows:
Prior to 15.01.1991 : Lessor-lessee suits (rent/eviction) up to Rs. 5,000/- - cognizable by Small Causes
Court [U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972].
W.e.f. 15.01.1991 : Enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- [U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991]. High Court
Notification dated 08.02.1991 and Administrative Committee Resolution dated 20.05.1994 vested jurisdiction
upon the senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of each district as the Small Causes Court for such suits up to
Rs. 25,000/-; suits above Rs. 25,000/- were triable by the District Judge/Additional District Judge.
W.e.f. 07.12.2015 : Further enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- [U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015
amending proviso to S. 15(2) of the Act]. Consequently, lessor-lessee suits for rent and eviction from a
building after determination of lease up to Rs. 1,00,000/- became cognizable by the Small Causes Court
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

presided over by Civil Judge, Senior Division; suits above Rs. 1,00,000/- remain triable by the District
Judge/Additional District Judge.
The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (as applicable to U.P.) - Section 25(1) empowers the High
Court to invest Civil Judges (Senior Division and Junior Division) with Small Causes jurisdiction up to a
specified value; Section 25(2) empowers the High Court to confer upon District Judges and Additional District
Judges Small Causes jurisdiction for all suits irrespective of valuation in lessor-lessee matters. Section 17 of
the said Act provides that where any civil court has ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case, the
matter may be heard in the court to which the business of the former court has been transferred.

FACTS :
The suit (SSC Suit No. 16 of 2011) was instituted by the lessor against the lessee for rent and eviction from a
building after determination of lease, under proviso to Section 15(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
1887. The admitted valuation of the suit is Rs. 44,000/-. At the time of its institution, the suit was rightly
instituted before the District Judge/Additional District Judge functioning as Small Causes Court, since the civil
jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court (presided over by the Civil Judge, Senior Division) extended only to suits
up to Rs. 25,000/-.
On 07.12.2015, the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force, enhancing the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court for lessor-lessee suits from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Consequently, a suit valued at Rs. 44,000/- became cognizable by the Small Causes Court presided over by
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, and ceased to be within the jurisdiction of the District Judge/Additional District
Judge.
Despite this change in jurisdiction, the Additional District Judge proceeded to decide SSC Suit No. 16 of 2011
on 24.05.2016 - i.e., more than five months after the amending Act came into force - and decreed the suit.
An objection to jurisdiction was raised before the Additional District Judge but was brushed aside. The present
revision was filed challenging the judgment and order as being without jurisdiction.

QUESTIONS OF LAW :
(i) Whether the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small
Causes Court over lessor-lessee suits (rent and eviction) from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- under the proviso
to Section 15(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 applies only to suits instituted after
07.12.2015, or whether it also governs suits already instituted and pending before that date?
(ii) Whether the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 - which
uses the word 'institution' - can be used to restrict the plain and unambiguous language of the amended
Section 15(2) so as to exclude pending suits from the operation of the amendment?
(iii) Whether the Additional District Judge, having ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction over a pending
lessor-lessee suit valued at Rs. 44,000/- by virtue of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f.
07.12.2015, acted illegally in proceeding to decide and decree such suit after the said date?

HELD :
(i) Plain language of amended S. 15(2) - Golden rule of statutory interpretation - Where the
language of a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, it must be given its literal meaning and no other
construction is permissible. The U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 amends the proviso to Section 15(2)
of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (as applicable to U.P.) in unmistakable terms, substituting the
words 'twenty-five thousand rupees' with 'one lakh rupees' with effect from 07.12.2015. The provision thereby
enacts that all lessor-lessee suits for rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease up to a
valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be triable by the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division. The language leaves no room for two opinions. [Relied upon: Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank
Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82; Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of M.P.,
(2013) 15 SCC 677; M/s. Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur, 1986 SC 1499]
8 All. Shri Shobhit Nigam Vs Smt. Batulan & Anr.
621
(ii) Statement of Objects and Reasons - Cannot override plain statutory language - The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 uses the word 'institution' in
the context of enhancing jurisdiction. However, the preamble or Statement of Objects and Reasons of a
statute is not to be used to influence the meaning otherwise ascribable to the enacting provisions unless there
is a compelling reason to do so. Since the language of the amended Section 15(2) is plain and unambiguous,
it is impermissible to interpret the amended provision in a manner different from what it clearly expresses by
importing limitations from the Statement of Objects and Reasons. Moreover, the institution of a suit
necessarily implies and includes the trial of the suit. Therefore, the change of jurisdiction effected by the
amendment operates not only for the purposes of institution of fresh suits but also for the trial of pending
suits. [Relied upon: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of M.P., (2013) 15 SCC 677; M/s.
Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur, 1986 SC 1499]
(iii) Effect of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 on pending lessor-lessee suits - Transfer
of jurisdiction - With effect from 07.12.2015, all suits between the lessor and lessee for rent and eviction
from a building after determination of lease under proviso to Section 15(2) of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 (as applicable to U.P.) up to a valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- - irrespective of the date of their
institution - are triable exclusively by the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge, Senior Division
of the district. The District Judge/Additional District Judge retains Small Causes jurisdiction only over such
suits having a valuation exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-. Section 17 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act,
1887 supports this conclusion by providing that where a civil court has ceased to have jurisdiction over any
case, the matter may be heard before the court to which such business has been transferred.
(iv) Resolution of conflict between S. 15 of PSCC Act and S. 25 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil
Courts Act - There is no conflict between Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887
(as amended by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) and the provisions of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991.
Both provisions can be read harmoniously. The net effect is that the Small Causes Court (presided over by
Civil Judge, Senior Division) exercises jurisdiction over lessor-lessee suits up to the enhanced pecuniary limit
(now Rs. 1,00,000/-), while the District Judge/Additional District Judge, invested with Small Causes powers,
exercises jurisdiction over such suits without a valuation ceiling - i.e., only over suits exceeding Rs.
1,00,000/-. [Relied upon: Mohd. Haneef v. Sunil Tuli, 2009 (1) ARC 750 (All HC)]
(v) Assumption of jurisdiction by Additional District Judge - Illegal; Judgment set aside - The
suit in question, valued at Rs. 44,000/-, was a lessor-lessee suit for rent and eviction falling under proviso to
Section 15(2) of the Act. On the date of its decision (24.05.2016), by virtue of the U.P. Civil Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2015 in force since 07.12.2015, the Additional District Judge had ceased to have pecuniary
jurisdiction over this suit. Accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Additional District Judge in
proceeding to decide and decree the suit is illegal and the judgment and order dated 24.05.2016 is liable to be
set aside. The matter is to be remanded to the Small Causes Court presided over by the senior most Civil
Judge, Senior Division of the district for decision in accordance with law.

DIRECTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY :
A copy of this judgment shall be circulated to all District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh for necessary
compliance, directing that all pending suits of rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease
falling under proviso to Section 15(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, having a valuation up to
Rs. 1,00,000/-, be transferred to the Small Causes Court presided over by the senior most Civil Judge, Senior
Division of the respective district, irrespective of the date of their institution.

RESULT :
Civil Revision allowed. Judgment and order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge in SSC
Suit No. 16 of 2011 set aside as without jurisdiction. Matter remanded to the Small Causes Court presided
over by the senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of the district for decision in accordance with law.

Cases Referred:
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Mohd. Haneef v. Sunil Tuli, 2009 (1) ARC 750 (All HC)
 Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82 (SC)
 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of M.P., (2013) 15 SCC 677 (SC)
M/s. Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur, 1986 SC 1499 (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. The judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 passed by the District Judge decreeing SSC
Suit No. 16 of 2011 (Smt. Batulan Vs. Ayub Khan and another) is sought to be revised under
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on
the ground that the Additional District Judge had ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide it.

2. The aforesaid Act provides for the establishment of Courts of Small Causes for the local
limits of the area beyond the original civil jurisdiction of High Courts established in the Presidency
Towns for the purposes of trying certain nature of civil suits in a summary manner.

3. The said Act vide Section 15 read with its Second Schedule provides that all suits of civil
nature upto a particular value shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

4. The aforesaid Act was amended time and again and the pecuniary value of suits
cognizable by Small Causes Court was enhanced from time to time.

5. The said Act stood amended in its applicability to the State of U.P., also.

6. The State of U.P., vide Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 1972 added a provision to Subsection 2 of Section 15 of the Act providing that the suits by the lessor for eviction of the lessee
from a building after determination of his lease shall be cognizable by the Small Causes Court and
that the reference to Rs. 2,000/- mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 15 of the Act shall be
construed as Rs. 5,000/- in respect to the above nature of suits.

7. In this way the aforesaid Act in its applicability to U.P., classified the suits cognizable by
Small Causes Courts into two groups ie. (i) all suits of the civil nature; and (ii) suits between lessor
and lessee for arrears of rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease.

8. Section 15 of the Act read with the Second Schedule in its amendment to the State of
U.P., vide Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 vests the power of trial of all civil suits upto the
valuation of Rs. 5,000/- and that of the suits between the lessor and lessee for rent and eviction
from a building after determination of lease upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- upon the Small
Causes Court.

9. The High Court vide notification of 8th February 1991 provided that all suits of the
nature referred to in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act as applicable in U.P.,
shall be cognizable by Munsifs (now Civil Judge, Junior Division) upto the the valuation of Rs.
8 All. Shri Shobhit Nigam Vs Smt. Batulan & Anr.
623
5,000/- and by the Civil Judge (now Civil Judge, Senior Division) upto the valuation of Rs.
25,000/-.

10. The High Court vide resolution dated 20.5.1994 of the Administrative Committee
resolved that the senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division) in each district be conferred with the
powers the powers of the Judge Small Causes Court.

11. Thus, the senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division) in each district of U.P., started
functioning as the court of Small Causes to try suits of rent and eviction referred to in proviso to
Section 15 (2) of the Act as applicable to U.P., having valuation upto Rs. 25,000/-.

12. Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 vide Sub-section (1) to Section 25 as
applicable to U.P., empowers the High Court to invest Subordinate Judges (Civil Judge, Senior
Division and Civil Judge, Junior Division) the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes
under the aforesaid Act upto such value not exceeding five thousand rupees. At the same time Subsection (2) of Section 25 of the aforesaid Act invests the High Court to confer power upon any
District Judge or Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of the Small Causes under the
Act for the purposes of trial of all suits irrespective of valuation by the lessor for arrears of rent and
eviction of the lessee from the building after determination of lease.

13. The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was amended vide the U.P. Civil
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 and Section 25 (2) of it was amended to construe Rs. 5,000/-
referred to in Section 15 (2) of the Act as Rs. 25,000/- to bring the jurisdiction of the Small Causes
Court in consonance with the amended Section 15 (2) of the Act.

14. In Mohd. Haneef Vs. Sunil Tuli 2009 (1) ARC 750 His Lordship of the Allahabad
High Court resolving the conflict between Section 15 of the Act and Section 25 of Bengal, Agra
and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 held that there is no conflict in between the two provisions of
Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act as amended by U.P. Act No. 37 of
1972 and the provisions as contained under U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1991. Both the
provisions can be read harmoniously and the net effect of the same is that jurisdiction up the limit
of Rs. 25,000/- can be exercised by Judge Small Cause Court under the provisions of Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, and as far as District Judges and Additional District Judges are concerned,
they are empowered to exercise jurisdiction of the Judge Small Cause Court for unlimited valuation
in suits of rent and eviction between lessor and lessee after determination of lease of a building.

15. In the light of the above provisions, notifications, amendments and the law laid down
the position which was prevailing in U.P., since 1991 was that all suits between the lessor and
lessee for rent and eviction were tried by the Small Causes Court presided over by senior most Civil
Judge, Senior Division of the district upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- and those with higher
valuation by the District Judge/Additional District Judge as Small Causes Court.
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. The instant suit is between the lessor and the lessee for rent and eviction from a
building after determination of lease and is referable to proviso to Section 15 (2) of the Act. The
valuation of the suit is admittedly Rs. 44,000/-. Therefore, it was instituted in the court of District
Judge/Additional District Judge for trial as a Small Causes Suit as the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
vested with power of Small causes Court was empowered to deal with suits having valuation upto
Rs. 25,000/- only and the rest of the suits were cognizable by District Judge/Additional District
Judge.

17. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court in respect of the above nature of
the suits was enhanced by U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act) 2015 w.e.f. 7th December 2015 upto
Rs. 1,00,000/- only leaving the trial of such nature of suits of higher valuation upon the District
Judge/Additional District Judge as Small Causes Court.

18. In view of the above amendment it is contended that on the date of decision of the
aforesaid suit having valuation of Rs. 44,000/- was cognizable by Small Causes Court presided over
by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not by the District Judge/ Additional District Judge but the
objection to this effect was brushed aside.

19. I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and another Sri
Arvind Srivastava for the respondents.

20. The argument on behalf of the revisionist is that the impugned judgment and order is
without jurisdiction. Had the suit been decided by the Small Causes Court, he would have got a
chance to seek its revision before the District Judge/Additional District Judge. This statutory
remedy has been snatched away from the revisionist and he had been compelled to prefer the
revision before the High Court which has eliminated the recourse to remedy Under Article 226/227
of the Constitution.

21. On behalf of the respondents it has been contended that the amendments brought about
in Section 15 of the Act as applicable to the State of U.P. vide U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act)
2015 applies only with regard to institution of suit and not in relation to pending suits in view of the
statement and objects & reasons of the said Amendment Act. Therefore, the suits already instituted
before the above amendment would continue to be tried and decided by the court before whom they
were instituted and pending.

22. Section 15 of the Act as initially existed reads as under:-

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 expected from the cognizance from the cognizance of a court of Small
Causes.
8 All. Shri Shobhit Nigam Vs Smt. Batulan & Anr.
625
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of 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 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."

23. The aforesaid Section 15 of the Act in its applicability to the State of U.P., wef.
15.1.1991 after the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 reads as under:-

"(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in
the Second Schedule as suits expected 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 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 form a
building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the
period of occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section
to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference of 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."

24. It appears that previously suits by lessor for eviction of the lessee from a building after
determination of tenancy, upto the value of Rs. 5,000/- were cognizable by the Court of Small
Causes but the aforesaid pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced upto Rs. 25,000/- w.e.f. 15.1.1991.

25. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts in respect of the above category
of suits has been further amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act) 2015 w.e.f. 7th
December 2015 and it has been provided that the Small Causes suits upto the valuation of Rs.
1,00,000/- between the lessor and lessee for the rent and eviction shall be cognizable by Small
Causes Court which refers to courts presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division). The suits of
higher valuation would therefore lay before the District Judge/Additional District Judge.

26. The U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 amends Section 15 of Provincial Small
Causes Court Act, 1887 as amended in its application to U.P., with effect from 7th December 2015
as under:-

4. "In Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.-
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) in sub-section (2) for the words "five thousand rupees" the words "twenty five
thousand rupees" shall be substituted;

(b) in the proviso to sub-section (2) for the words "twenty five thousand rupees" the
word "one lakh rupees" shall be substituted."

27. Thus, Section 15 of the Act in its application to the State of U.P., after the U.P. Civil
Laws Amendment Act, 2015 reads as under:-

"(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the
Second Schedule as suits expected 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
twenty 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 form a
building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the
period of occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section to
five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference of 1 lakh rupees.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression 'building' has the
same meaning as in Art. (4) in the Second Schedule."

28. The valuation of the suit at hand is Rs. 44,000/- ie., higher than Rs. 25,000/- and less
than Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid amendment it falls within the jurisdiction of
the Small Causes Court presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not the District
Judge/Additional District Judge on the date of its decision.

29. The prefatory note of statement of objects and reasons contained in U.P. Civil Laws
(Amendment Act) 2015 states that the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Court in the State of
U.P., requires to be enhanced for the 'institution' of civil suits and appeals and therefore it is
necessary to amend the Small Causes Court Act, 1887.

30. The emphasis has been laid upon the word 'institution' to denote that the jurisdiction has
been altered only for the purposes of filing of the suits and not for the trial of the pending suits.

31. The institution of the suits by necessary implication includes the trial of the suits also.
Therefore, the change of jurisdiction is not only for the purpose of institution but for the trial of the
suits also.

32. The language used in the Amending Act to amend Section 15 of the Act is
unambiguous, plain and clear. It provides that the suits of rent and eviction upto the valuation of Rs.
8 All. Shri Shobhit Nigam Vs Smt. Batulan & Anr.
627
1,00,000/- are triable by the Small Causes court ie., of the Civil Judge, Senior Division with effect
from the enforcement of Amending Act. It leaves no scope for two opinions. It is a golden rule of
interpretation that where the language is plain and clear, the literal meaning conveyed should be
followed and there is no need for taking aid of either the statement of objects and reasons or the
purpose behind enacting the provision.

33. In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others Vs. State of Kerala
and others (2013) 16 SCC 82 it has been observed that primarily the language employed in the
statute is the determining factor of the legislative intention which must be found in the words used
by the legislature itself and if the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not
be open to courts to adopt any other hypothetical constrictions.

34. In Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others (2013) 15 SCC 677 it was observed that the preamble or the statement of objects or reasons
of any statute is not to influence the meaning otherwise ascribable to the enacting parts unless there
is compelling reasons for it.

35. In M/s. Girdhari Lal and sons Vs. Balbir Nath Mathur and others 1986 (SC) 1499 it
was held that the golden rule of construction is that where the words of statues are plain and
unambiguous effect must be given to them. First, the legislative intention must be gathered from the
statute itself, next from the preamble of the statute, next from the statement of objects and reasons,
thereafter from legislative debates, reports of the Committee and commissions and finally from all
legitimate and admissible sources which may throw light on it including the legislative history.

36. Thus, it is not proper for me to go into the objects and reasons behind the Amending
Act and to interpret the provision in manner different from what it clearly expresses.

37. In this context Section 17 of The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is
also relevant and important. It provides that where any civil court has ceased to have jurisdiction
with respect to any case, it may be had in the court to which the business of the former court has
been transferred. Now by virtue of the amendment in the pecuniary jurisdiction, the District
Judge/Additional District Judge has ceased to have jurisdiction over suits below the valuation of
Rs.1 lakh concerning rent and eviction form building. Therefore all suits including the above suit
requires to be dealt with by Small Causes Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not by the
District Judge/Additional District Judge.

38. In view of the aforesaid discussion with effect from 7th December 2015 the jurisdiction
to try all suits between the lessor and lessee for rent & eviction under Section 15 of the Act as
applicable to the State of U.P., upto the valuation of Rs.1 lakh irrespective of the date of their
institution would lie before the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) and the District Judge/Additional District Judge would not have jurisdiction to decide
them except those having the valuation of over 1 lakh.
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. Accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction by Additional District Judge in deciding the
present suit having valuation of Rs. 44,000/- is illegal. It makes the judgment and order passed by
him liable to be set aside.

40. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the regular Small Causes Court presided over by senior most Civil Judge,
Senior Division of the district for its decision in accordance with law.

41. A copy of this judgment be circulated to all the District Judges of U.P., for necessary
compliance to ensure that all pending suits of rent and eviction from a building after determination
of lease falling under proviso to Section 15 (2) of the Act upto the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- be
transferred to the Small Causes Court presided over by senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of
the district irrespective of the date of their institution.

42. The revision is allowed.
-----------
8 All. Vinod Kumar Parihar Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
629
(2016) 8 ILRA 629
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No.- 22839 Of 2016

Vinod Kumar Parihar ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Applicant:
Viveka Nand Rai

Counsel for Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Legislation referred to:-
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 190, 482; Chapter XV (Cognizance of offences by
Magistrates).

FACTS :
The applicant was summoned by the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 5, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 1300 of 2015
(Smt. Beby Upadhyay v. Vinod Kumar Parihar) for prosecution of an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on account of dishonour of cheque drawn on his bank account in favour of
the complainant/opposite party no. 2.
The applicant, through counsel, contended that prior to the filing of the complaint and prior to the
presentation of the cheque in question in the bank, an FIR had been lodged by the applicant with the police to
the effect that the complainant had forcibly obtained his signatures on cheques bearing nos. 641871 to
641885. It was further contended that pursuant to investigation of the said FIR, a charge-sheet was submitted
against the complainant. The applicant urged that the trial court, while passing the summoning order, had
failed to consider the contents of the reply to the statutory legal notice sent by the applicant, and that there
was no reason or liability on the part of the applicant to issue the cheques in favour of the complainant, as
they were alleged to be the result of a threat to his life.
The trial court, while passing the order of cognizance and summoning, had considered that the cheque
relating to the applicant's bank account was drawn in the name of the complainant, who had presented it in
the bank; that after dishonour, a legal notice was duly served upon the applicant; and that upon non-payment
of the cheque amount, the complaint was filed. On this prima facie satisfaction, the summoning order was
passed. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged the said proceedings.

Questions of Law
(i) Whether the proceedings of a complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act are liable to be quashed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a defence version - namely, that the cheques in question were obtained
by force - which is yet to be proved by adducing evidence before the trial court?