# Sri Vikas Gupta Revisionist v. M/s Shri Ram Mahadev Prasad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1248
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-05
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 602 of 2010
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-vikas-gupta-revisionist-v-m-s-shri-ram-mahadev-prasad-anr-43114
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.P.C. Order XX Rule 4 & 5-Framing of
issues-proceeding before judge small
causes court, being summery in nature
with limited pecuniary jurisdiction-sole
purpose of expeditions disposal-framing
issues-held-not necessary like regular
civil suits.
Held: Para-12 & 13

## Text

1248
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was found that she was not having requisite
qualification for the post in question as
advertised. However, she accepted the
appointment with open eyes without even a
murmur and rushed to this Court and
challenged the advertisement as well as the
order dated 7.6.2012 by which her services
were
terminated,
praying
that
the
respondents may be directed to permit her to
function as a part time teacher in Kastoorba
Gandhi
Balika
Vidyalya,
Nevada,
Kaushambi and make payment of her salary.
12. We have considered the rival
contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and in our opinion, the appellantpetitioner on one hand, cannot take
advantage of advertisement for appointment
and on the other hand, challenge the
advertisement. After verification of her
educational testimonials she has been found
to be unqualified for the post. Hence, she
cannot now turn around now and challenge
the advertisement as well as the order of
termination passed on the ground that she
was ineligible for appointment for the post in
question. It is always open to the college to
invite applications from the candidates who
are eligible and having better qualifications
than the minimum qualifications prescribed
in the statute itself. The petitioner was found
ineligible for appointment on the post in
question, hence her appointment has rightly
been cancelled by the authority.
13. We, therefore, do not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.9.2012 of
the Writ Court dismissing the writ petition
preferred by the appellant-petitioner and
affirming the order dated 7.6.2012 passed
by the District Basic Education Officer,
Kaushambi.
14. For all the reasons stated above,
the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear
their own costs.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Revision No. 602 of 2010
Sri Vikas Gupta
...Revisionist
Versus
M/s Shri Ram Mahadev Prasad & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ramendra Asthana, Sri Vijay Kumar
Ojha, Sri M.L. Maurya
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri M.K. Gupta, Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, Sri
Abhinav Shukla
C.P.C. Order XX Rule 4 & 5-Framing of
issues-proceeding before judge small
causes court, being summery in nature
with limited pecuniary jurisdiction-sole
purpose of expeditions disposal-framing
issues-held-not necessary like regular
civil suits.
Held: Para-12 & 13
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.
3 All]. Sri Vikas Gupta Vs. M/s Shri Ram Mahadev Prasad & Anr.
1249
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.
Case Law discussed:
1982 (1) ARC 356; 2013 (2) ARC 376.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
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 applicantdefendant contested the suit by filing his
written statement on 23 December 2009.
3. On 17 July 2010 the tenantrevisionist 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
1250
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."
3 All]. Sri Vikas Gupta Vs. M/s Shri Ram Mahadev Prasad & Anr.
1251
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
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.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), J.
Special Appeal No. 625 of 2008
Connected with Special Appeal (D) No.
186 of 2009, 662 of 2008, 669 of 2008
and Special Appeal No. 631 of 2008
Ravindra Nath Pandey (S/S 6985/2005)
...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajan Roy, Sri Rahul Srivastava