# OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS v. VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR

- **Citation:** [2018] 13 S.C.R. 47
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-10-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 9051-9052 of 2018
- **Bench:** A. K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/om-prakash-agarwal-since-deceased-thr-lrs-ors-v-vishan-dayal-rajpoot-anr-32512
- **Pages:** 44

## Headnote

Jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction of Additional District Judge (as Small Causes
Court) - To decide the cases pending before it - After amendment
by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Suit seeking
decree of eviction, rent and damages - Filed before Small Causes
Court [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] - Suit transferred to Additional
District Judge on the ground that value of the suit property being
Rs.27,775/- was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small
Causes Court i.e. Rs.25,000/- - During pendency of the suit before
Additional District Judge, by Amendment Act, pecuniary jurisdiction
of the Small Causes Court was raised from Rs.25,000 to Rs. One
lakh - Defendants did not raise any objection as to maintainability
of the suit before Addl. District Judge due to lack of jurisdiction in
view of the Amendment Act - Suit was decided on merit and was
decreed - Defendants filed Revision - High Court allowed the
Revision holding that order passed by Addl. District Judge was
without jurisdiction - On appeal, held:In view of s. 15 of CPC read
with provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and
Bengal, Agra Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, legislative scheme is
clear that small cause cases upto value of Rs. 1 lakh should be
taken cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge
and cases having value of more than Rs. 1 lakh by Disrtrict Judge/
Addl. District Judge having power of Small Cause Court - Section
15(2) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides that suit shall
be cognizable by Court of Small Causes - The word cognizable
takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a case
cognizable by it - The statement of objects and reasons explains
the reason for increase of pecuniary jurisdiction, but use of words
"for institution" therein cannot control the express language of the
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 47
 47
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
statutory provisions - Thus, Addl. District Judge did not have
jurisdiction to try the present case - However, in view of the provision
u/s. 21 of CPC and in view of the fact that no objection was taken
by defendant to the jurisdiction of Addl. District Judge before that
Court, he is precluded from raising such objection in Revision -
Therefore, even though Addl. District Judge was not competent to
decide the suit, no interference was called for in its judgment in
exercise of Revisional jurisdiction by High Court - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - ss. 15 and 21 - Provisional Small Cause Courts
Act, 1887 - Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 - Uttar
Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Rules of interpretation - Held: Legislative provisions have to
be interpreted in a manner, which may advance the object and
purpose of the Act.
Statement of objects and reasons - As an aid to interpret the
statute - Held: Statement of objects and reasons of the statute can
be looked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent
only when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language is obscure
and ambiguous - Words in statements of objects and reasons, cannot
control the express language of the statutory provisions.
Judicial Propriety:
Conflicting views by Single Judge Benches of High Court -
Propriety - Held: Instead of giving conflicting view, it is better to
achieve certainty by an authoritative opinion by High Court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Small Cause Courts were envisaged to be
Courts, which may expeditiously dispose of small causes. Small
causes were contemplated to be disposed of by the Courts by
following the procedure less cumbersome as compared to those
applicable in the regular civil courts. By U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972,
the cases by a lessor for eviction of lessee and for recovery of
rent in respect of the period of occupation was also taken in fold
of small causes, which could be taken cognizance by Small Causes
Cou

## Text

_Characters 0–39,817 of 100,218. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39817 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED
THR. LRS. & ORS.
v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9051-9052 of 2018)
OCTOBER 12, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction of Additional District Judge (as Small Causes
Court) - To decide the cases pending before it - After amendment
by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Suit seeking
decree of eviction, rent and damages - Filed before Small Causes
Court [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] - Suit transferred to Additional
District Judge on the ground that value of the suit property being
Rs.27,775/- was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small
Causes Court i.e. Rs.25,000/- - During pendency of the suit before
Additional District Judge, by Amendment Act, pecuniary jurisdiction
of the Small Causes Court was raised from Rs.25,000 to Rs. One
lakh - Defendants did not raise any objection as to maintainability
of the suit before Addl. District Judge due to lack of jurisdiction in
view of the Amendment Act - Suit was decided on merit and was
decreed - Defendants filed Revision - High Court allowed the
Revision holding that order passed by Addl. District Judge was
without jurisdiction - On appeal, held:In view of s. 15 of CPC read
with provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and
Bengal, Agra Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, legislative scheme is
clear that small cause cases upto value of Rs. 1 lakh should be
taken cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge
and cases having value of more than Rs. 1 lakh by Disrtrict Judge/
Addl. District Judge having power of Small Cause Court - Section
15(2) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides that suit shall
be cognizable by Court of Small Causes - The word cognizable
takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a case
cognizable by it - The statement of objects and reasons explains
the reason for increase of pecuniary jurisdiction, but use of words
"for institution" therein cannot control the express language of the
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 47
 47
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
statutory provisions - Thus, Addl. District Judge did not have
jurisdiction to try the present case - However, in view of the provision
u/s. 21 of CPC and in view of the fact that no objection was taken
by defendant to the jurisdiction of Addl. District Judge before that
Court, he is precluded from raising such objection in Revision -
Therefore, even though Addl. District Judge was not competent to
decide the suit, no interference was called for in its judgment in
exercise of Revisional jurisdiction by High Court - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - ss. 15 and 21 - Provisional Small Cause Courts
Act, 1887 - Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 - Uttar
Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Rules of interpretation - Held: Legislative provisions have to
be interpreted in a manner, which may advance the object and
purpose of the Act.
Statement of objects and reasons - As an aid to interpret the
statute - Held: Statement of objects and reasons of the statute can
be looked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent
only when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language is obscure
and ambiguous - Words in statements of objects and reasons, cannot
control the express language of the statutory provisions.
Judicial Propriety:
Conflicting views by Single Judge Benches of High Court -
Propriety - Held: Instead of giving conflicting view, it is better to
achieve certainty by an authoritative opinion by High Court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Small Cause Courts were envisaged to be
Courts, which may expeditiously dispose of small causes. Small
causes were contemplated to be disposed of by the Courts by
following the procedure less cumbersome as compared to those
applicable in the regular civil courts. By U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972,
the cases by a lessor for eviction of lessee and for recovery of
rent in respect of the period of occupation was also taken in fold
of small causes, which could be taken cognizance by Small Causes
Court after amendment of Clause (4) of Second Schedule of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The amendment made
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
49
in Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act,
1887 by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 empowered the State Government
to confer upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge
power of Judge of Small Causes Court "for the trial of suits
irrespective of their value by the lessor for the eviction of
lessee....." The above amendment was necessitated since the
Court of Small Causes presided by Civil Judge could have
entertained small causes suits having value of only five thousand
rupees. As per amendment by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 cases by
lessor for the eviction of lessee having valuation of more than
five thousand rupees could not have been taken cognizance by
Civil Judges, who were designated as Judges of Small Causes
Court to take up such cases. When Legislature treated all suits
by the lessor for the eviction of lessee from a building as a "Small
Cause Suit", a forum had to be created for deciding such cases
as small cause cases. [Para 30][72-A-E]
1.2 The expression "irrespective of their value" used in
Section 25 as amended was with clear intention that irrespective
of the value, the cases filed by the lessor for the eviction of lessee
should be treated as small causes cases and should be dealt as a
small cause case. By subsequent amendment, the Small Causes
Courts presided by Civil Judge became empowered to decide
cases of small cause upto twenty-five thousand rupees and cases
above twenty-five thousand rupees by lessor against lessee were
to be taken cognizance by Court of Additional District Judges.
The legislative Scheme contains a clear dichotomy between cases,
which could have been taken cognizance by small causes courts
presided by Civil Judge and those of small cause cases presided
by District Judge or Additional District Judge. The dividing line
was only valuation of small cause cases relating to suits by lessor
against the lessee. Necessity to empower the District Judge/
Additional District Judge to decide small cause cases relating to
eviction by lessor against lessee was with the above intent. The
Legislature never intended that all cases pertaining to suits by
lessor against the lessee of any valuation could be filed in any
Small Causes Court. [Para 30][72-E-H; 73-A]
1.3 It is true that District Judge or Additional District Judge
functioning as Small Causes Courts can take cognizance of all
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
suits irrespective of their value. But use of the words
"irrespective of their value" was in contradiction of the pecuniary
value, which was given to Judge of Small Causes Courts presided
by Civil Judge. The fact that District Judge or Additional District
Judge can take cognizance of all suits irrespective of their value
shall not whittle down or dilute the line of separation between
two courts in taking cognizance of small cause cases. This will
not empower them to take cognizance of cases, which, according
to statutory Scheme can be taken only by small causes courts
presided by Civil Judge. [Para 31][73-B-C]
1.4 As per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit
of less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation has to be instituted in Small
Causes Court presided by Civil Judge. Although, District Judge
or Additional District Judge has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction
but under the legislative Scheme, the suit is not to be taken
cognizance by the District Judge or Additional District Judge,
which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. Even if Section 15 of C.P.C.
is a provision, which regulates the institution of suits and does
not affect the jurisdiction of Courts, reading the provision of
Section 15 alongwith relevant provisions of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act, 1887 and the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil
Courts Act, 1887, the legislative Scheme is clear that small cause
cases should be taken cognizance by Small Cause Courts
presided by Civil Judge upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and cases
having valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh by District Judge or
Additional District Judge, who have been invested with the power
of Small Cause Courts. Unless the above legislative intent and
Scheme is followed, there shall be confusion and inconsistency.
The legislative provisions have to be interpreted in a manner,
which may advance the object and purpose of the Act. When
clear dichotomy regarding taking cognizance of small causes suits
presided by Civil Judge and by District Judge or Additional
District Judge have been provided for, the said dichotomy and
separation to take cognizance of cases has to be followed to further
the object and purpose of legislation. [Para 35][78-D-H]
1.5 When the Court of District Judge or Additional District
Judge could no longer take cognizance of small cause suits of
having less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation, it was no longer in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
competence of Small Cause Court presided by District Judge or
Additional District Judge to proceed to decide the suit of
having valuation of less than Rs. 1 lakh. Proper course was to
transfer the cases before a competent court to decide the suits.
[Para 36][79-B-C]
1.6 Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
1887 bears the title "Cognizance of Suits by Courts of Small
Causes". Sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that a Court of
Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in
the Second Schedule as suit excepted from the cognizance of
Court of Small Causes. Sub-section (2)(as applicable in Uttar
Pradesh) provides that all suits of the civil nature of which the
value does not exceed Rs.5,000/- shall be cognizable by Court of
Small Causes. As per the proviso to sub-section (2) in relation to
suits by lessor for the eviction of lessee from building after
determination of lease, the reference of Rs.5,000/- shall be
construed as a reference to Rs.25,000/-. The keyword in the
provision is "shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes." The
word 'Cognizable' is a word of wide import. It takes into its
fold institution, hearing and decision of a case cognizable by it.
[Paras 38 and 42][79-E-G; 80-G]
Black's Law Dictionary; Advanced Law Lexicon by P.
Ramanatha Aiyar - referred to.
1.7 When the plain word in the statute i.e. Section 15(2)
uses the word "cognizable" "statements of objects and reasons"
which uses the word "institution" shall not whittle down, the word
'cognizable' as used in Section 15(2). It is true that statement of
objects noticed that value of subject matters brought to the courts
has increased substantially, hence, pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Civil Courts as well those of Small Causes Courts in State of
Uttar Pradesh requires to be raised for the institution of civil
suits and appeals. The amendment has raised pecuniary limits in
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The statement of
objects and reasons explains the reason for increase of pecuniary
jurisdiction but use of word 'for institution' in statement of object
cannot control the express language of the statutory provisions.
[Paras 42 and 43][81-A, E, F]
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
1.8 Statement of objects and reasons of the statute can be
looked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent
only when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language is
obscure and ambiguous. [Para 44][81-G]
1.9 The statement of object of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2015 thus explains the reason for bringing the amendment
for increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction but the word 'institution'
used in statement of object shall not control the expressed
language of Section 15. [Para 46][82-F-G]
1.10 The expression 'cognizance' used in Section 15 shall
mean and include institution, hearing and decision of the case.
When statute provides that cognizance of particular cause is to
be taken by a particular court, no other court can take cognizance
of the cause, since legislature never creates or provides for
parallel jurisdiction in two different courts for taking cognizance
of a cause. When Section 15 provides that all suits of civil
nature of which the value does not exceed Rs.25,000/-
"shall be cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes", the
cognizance shall be taken by that very Court and no other Court.
[Para 46][82-G-H; 83-A]
1.11 The proviso to sub-section (2) provides that figure of
Rs.5,000/- shall be construed to Rs.25,000/-. By U.P. Civil Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2015, the figure of Rs.25,000/- stood
substituted by Rs.1 lac. Reading sub-section(2) read with proviso
and U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 clearly means that
Small Cause suits with valuation not exceeding Rs.1 lac shall be
cognizable by Court of Small Causes. [Para 47][83-B-C]
1.12 Additional District Judge to whom small causes suit
in question was transferred since its valuation was more than
Rs.25,000/- was not competent to take cognizance of the suit
after U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015,
when the suit in question became cognizable by Small Causes Court
i.e. Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division.[Para 47][83-C-D]
State of Himachal Pradesh v. M. P.Gupta (2004) 2 SCC
349 : 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 541; S. S. Bola v. B. D.
Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522 : [1997] 2 Suppl. SCR
507; Subha Ram v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC
506 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 65 ; Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
Officer, (2003) 1 SCC 692 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 116
- relied on.
Pankaj Hotel vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ 2017 -
not approved.
Shobhit Nigam vs. Smt. Batulan and Another SCC
Revision No. 278 of 2016 - partly approved.
M.P. Mishra vs. Sangam Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975
Allahabad 425 - referred to.
2.1 The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of Civil
Procedure is that when the case has been tried by a court on
merits and the judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be
reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in
failure of justice. The provisions akin to Section 21 are also
contained in Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 and Section
99 of Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 50][84-E-F]
2.2 It is apparent from the judgment of Additional District
Judge, that no objection to the competence of Additional District
Judge to decide the case was taken by any of the parties. No
objection having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code
comes into play. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that no
objection as to the competence of the Court with reference to
the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions mentioned
therein are fulfilled. Sub-section (2) precludes the revisionist to
raise any objection regarding competence of the court and further
revisional court ought not to have allowed such objection
regarding competence of Court of Additional District Judge to
decide the suit. The respondent tenant did not raise any objection
regarding competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain
judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed to turnround and contend that the court of Additional District Judge
had no jurisdiction to try the Small Cause Suit and the judgment
is without jurisdiction and nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to
thwart any such objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise
any objection regarding competence of court and allowed the
matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the small cause
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
suit by Additional District Judge, the tenant has not proved
that there has been a consequent failure of justice.
[Para 56][88-G-H; 89-A-D]
2.3 The High Court in the impugned judgment has not
adverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section
21 contains a legislative policy which policy has an object and
purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on
basis of technical objections. [Para 57][89-E]
2.4 Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislative
policy which cannot be ignored or given a go-by by the litigants
who challenges an unfavourable decision. Therefore, High Court
committed error in allowing the Revision filed by the respondent
tenant without taking into consideration Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code. [Paras 59 and 61][90-B, D]
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340 :
[1955] SCR 117; R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private
Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC
130 : [1993] 1 SCR 455; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi
v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 : [ 2007] 4
 SCR 150; Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa
Ambasa Dharmadas (2007) 13 SCC 650 : [2007]
4 SCR 150 - relied on.
Tejumal v. Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392 - not
approved.
Hiralal v. Kalinath and AIR 1963 SC 634, Bahrain
Petroleum Co. v. P. J. Pappu and Another AIR (1962)
SC 199 : [1962] SCR 747 - referred to.
3. Thus even when the court of Additional District Judge
was not competent to decide the Small Causes Suit in question
on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction is vested in Court
of Small Causes i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015,
no interference was called in the judgment of Additional District
Judge in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by High Court
in view of the provisions of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code.
[Para 62][90-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
4. It is always better to achieve certainty by an authoritative
opinion by the High Court instead of giving conflicting views by
different Single Judges which may confuse the litigants, lawyers
and sub-ordinate courts in applying the law. [Para 48][83-F]
Case Law Reference
SCC Revision No. 278 of 2016 partly approved
Para 2
(2018) 1 ALJ 2017
 not approved
Para 2
AIR 1975 Allahabad 425
 referred to
Para 31
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 541
 relied on
Para 41
[1997] 2 Suppl. SCR 507
 relied on
Para 44
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 65
 relied on
Para 45
[2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 116
 relied on
Para 45
[1955] SCR 117
 relied on
Para 50
[1962] SCR 747
 referred to
Para 52
[1993] 1 SCR 455
 relied on
Para 53
[2007] 4 SCR 150
 relied on
Para 54
2017 (121) ALR 392
 not approved
Para 58
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 90519052 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in S.C.C. Revision Nos. 404 and 407 of 2016
A. K. Singla, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Mittal, Nayan Nepal, K. Singhal,
Pankaj Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.
Kanhaiya Singhal, S. U. Khan, Praveen Jain, S. K. Tyagi, Advs.
for the Respondents.
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by
the appellant (landlord), questioning the judgment of Allahabad High Court
in Small Causes Court Revision filed by the respondents(tenant)
challenging the decree of eviction passed by Additional District Judge,
Firozabad. The issue which has arisen in these appeals pertains to the
jurisdiction of Court of Additional District Judge in deciding Small Causes
Suit on 22.10.2016.
2. The facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these appeals
are:-
The appellant, the landlord of premises in question filed Small
Causes Suit No. 1 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Small Cause Court, Firozabad praying for decree of
eviction, rent and damages. By order dated 05.04.2010 passed by
Additional District Judge, the suit was transferred to the Court of
District Judge, Firozabad and was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 1
of 2010. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge, Small Cause Court,
which at the time of filing of the suit was Rs.25,000/- was raised
from Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh w.e.f. 07.12.2005 vide Uttar Pradesh
Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015. The Additional District Judge
to whom the suit was transferred earlier on the ground that
pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit is more than Rs.25,000/- i.e.
Rs.27,775/-, proceeded to decide the suit vide its judgment and
order dated 22.10.2016 and the suit for eviction, rent and
compensation was decreed. Aggrieved against the judgment of
Addl. District Judge, revision under Section 25 of the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was filed by the tenant (respondents
to this appeal). One of the grounds taken in the revision was that
after enactment of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,
2015, the Court of Additional District Judge ceased to have any
jurisdiction to try the suit between lessor and lessee of a value
upto Rs. 1 lakh. The assumption subsequent thereto of the
jurisdiction by the Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction.
 Some other grounds were also taken for challenging the
judgment dated 22.10.2016. The High Court vide its impugned
judgment dated 07.12.2016 allowed the Small Cause Court revision
taking a view that order passed by Additional District Judge was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
without jurisdiction in view of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, after which date, such
case of valuation of Rs.27,775/- could have been decided by Civil
Judge (Senior Division) working as Judge Small Causes Court.
The High Court relied on the earlier judgment of High Court in
SCC Revision No. 278 of 2016 - Shobhit Nigam Vs. Smt.
Batulan and another decided on 29.08.2016. The High Court
remanded back the Revision for a fresh decision by Small Causes
Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The landlord
aggrieved by said judgment has come up in this appeal.
3. Shri A.K. Singla, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that High Court committed an error in allowing the
Revision. It is submitted that Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015 has only enhanced the jurisdiction for
institution of small causes suit, which amendment shall have no effect
on the pending cases. In the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2015, there was no stipulation that pending cases of having valuation
of more than Rs.25,000/- before the Court of District Judge should be
transferred. He submits that no objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of
Additional District Judge was taken by the respondents before the
Additional District Judge, hence by virtue of Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code, they were estopped from taking any such objection in
the Revision.
4. Shri S.U. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
refuting the submission of the appellant contends that the Uttar Pradesh
Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, uses the word
"cognizance". If a suit is cognizable by a Court then the Court has got
the jurisdiction not only to receive the plaint but also to decide the suit.
After the amendment by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,
2015, the Court of Additional District Judge was not only debarred from
receiving plaints but was also not competent to decide Small Causes
Suit, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. To the view taken by the High
Court in Shobhit Nigam's case (supra), there is a contrary view taken
by the High Court in Pankaj Hotel Vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ
2017. The principles and objections of pecuniary jurisdiction as
contemplated in Section 21(2) is not attracted in the present case. In
Shobhit Nigam's case (supra) High Court had issued a general direction
for transferring of Regular Judge Small Causes Court Suits upto valuation
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
of Rs. 1 lakh to the Civil Judge (Senior Division). He submits that special
leave petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. From the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and the pleadings on record, following are the issues, which arise for
consideration in this appeal:
i. Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,
2015 is only prospective in nature and confined only to the
fresh institution of suits in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) w.e.f. 07.12.2015 upto valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and
shall not affect the cognizance/hearing of pending suits upto
the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh pending in the Court of District
Judge/Additional District Judge?
ii. Whether the Court of District Judge/Additional District Judge,
which Court was vested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes
suit of the valuation of more than Rs.25,000/- w.e.f. 08.02.1991
shall cease to have or could have still exercised the pecuniary
jurisdiction on the Small Causes Suits of Valuation upto Rs. 1
lakh?
iii. Whether respondents (tenants) having not raised any objection
regarding jurisdiction of the Court of Additional District Judge
where the suit was pending after amendments made by Uttar
Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the respondent
(tenant) is precluded to question the competence of the Court
of Additional District Judge to decide the suit vide his judgment
dated 22.10.2016 in view of Section 21 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in revision filed under Section 25 of the
Provincial Small Causes Court Act?
6. Before we proceed to consider the issues, which has arisen for
consideration in this appeal, it is useful to refer the relevant statutory
provisions relevant for the subject.
7. Two enactments namely (i) The Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil
Courts Act, 1887 and (ii) The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887,
were passed with regard to constitution, jurisdiction of Civil Courts in
the then North-Western Provinces both being enforced w.e.f. 01.07.1887.
The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was enacted to
consolidate and amend the law relating to Civil Courts in Bengal, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
North-Western Provinces and Assam. Section 3 of the Act provides for
Constitution of Civil Courts. Section 4 relates to number of District
Judges, Subordinate Judges and Munsifs. Section 17 dealt with
continuance of proceeding of Courts ceasing to have jurisdiction. Section
18 dealt with extent of original jurisdiction of District or Subordinate
Judge (for the State of Uttar Pradesh, the word "Subordinate" was
substituted with the word "Civil"). Section 19 dealt with extent of
jurisdiction of Munsif. Section 19 as applicable in the State of Uttar
Pradesh was substituted by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1991 was to the following
effect:-
"19(1) Save as aforesaid, and subject to the provisions of subsection(2), the jurisdiction of a Munsif extends to all like suits of
which the value does not exceed ten thousand rupees.
(2) The High Court may direct by notification in the official Gazette,
with respect to any munsif named therein, that his jurisdiction
shall exceed to all like suits of such value not exceeding twenty
five thousand rupees as may be specified in the notification."
8. Section 25 deals with power to invest Subordinate Judges and
Munsifs with Small Cause Court Jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Act as
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh is as follows: -
"[25.[1] The High Court may by notification in the official
Gazette, confer within such local limits as it thinks fit, upon
any Civil Judge or Munsif, the jurisdiction of a Judge of a
Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 for the trial of suits cognizable by such
Courts up to such value not exceeding five thousand rupees
as it thinks fit, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so
conferred:
Provided that in relation to suits of the nature referred to
in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the said
Act, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees
shall be construed as reference to twenty-five thousand
rupees.]
[(2) The High Court may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, confer upon any District Judge or Additional District
Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for the
trial of all suits(irrespective of their value), by the lessor for
the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination
of his lease, or for the 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 during the continuance of the lease or of compensation
for the use and occupation thereof after such determination
of lease, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, the
expression 'building' has the same meaning as in Article (4)
in the Second Schedule of the said Act.]
[(3)]x x x ]
[(4) Where the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small
Causes is conferred upon any District Judge of Additional
District Judge by notification under section, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, all suits referred to
in sub-section (2) shall be cognizable by Court of Small
Causes.]"
9. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was enacted to
consolidate and amend the law relating to courts of small causes
established beyond the Presidency town. AS the name suggests, the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 was enacted to deal with "Small
Causes". The Object of the Act was to create a separate court for
dealing with small causes. The object obviously was that small causes
may be dealt with expeditiously. A summary procedure was also
envisaged for dealing with small causes. The Presidency Small Cause
Courts Act, 1882 was already in place in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.
In this country, before the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 was
enacted, there were different legislations applicable in different areas
with the same object, i.e., to deal with cases of small causes effectively
and summarily. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act 1887 was to the following effect:-
"The suits cognizable in Courts of Small Causes are subject to
certain provisos, described in Section 6, Act XI of 1865, as "claims
for money due on bond or other contract, or for rent, or for personal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
property, or for the value of such property, or for damages, when
the debt, damage or demand does not exceed in amount or value
the sum of five hundred rupees whether on balance of account or
otherwise" and Sec. 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides
that "no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable
in Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the
subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundred
rupees". Since Section 6 of the Act of 1865 was enacted, a vast
quantity of case-law has grown up around it, and, as the rulings of
the Courts have not been uniform, doubts constantly arise on the
question whether a suit is or is not a suit of the nature cognizable
by a Court of Small Causes, and, consequently, whether or not,
where the suit is of value not exceeding five hundred rupees and
the original decree made in it was not final but was open to appeal,
an appeal will also lie from the appellate decree in the suit. It
appears to the Government of India that the conflicting
constructions placed on Section 6, of which some are due to the
progress of legislation during the last twenty years (ILR 3 All 66),
render a more accurate definition necessary of the suits of which
Courts of Small Causes may take cognizance, and that legislation
to this end should follow Sections 18 and 19 of the Presidency
Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, in declaring the jurisdiction of those
Courts to extend to all suits of a civil nature, subject to specified
exceptions. This Bill has accordingly been prepared, its primary
object being to remove the doubts now felt as to the effect of
Section 6, Act XI of 1865; and, as several sections and parts of
sections of that Act have, from time to time, been repealed and
other sections are obsolete as regards both expression and utility,
it has been considered desirable to repeal the Act and re-enact
the substance of the extant portions of it.........." - Gazette of
India, 1886, Part V, page 8."
10. Black's Law Dictionary has referred to "Small Claims Court",
which explained it in following manner:-
"A court that informally and expeditiously adjudicates claims that
seek damages below a specified monetary amount, usu. claims to
collect small accounts or debts.- Also termed small-debts court;
conciliation court."
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
11. The object as is delineated from Statements of Objects of
enactment was to provide for speedy machinery for small claims.
Although, Code of Civil Procedure is applicable by virtue of Section 17
of Small Causes Courts Act, but the Code of Civil Procedure itself in
Order L provides a simplified procedure excluding various rules and
orders of the C.P.C. for small causes cases. Order L of the C.P.C. is as
follows:-
"1. Provincial Small Cause Courts - The provisions hereinafter
specified shall not extend to Courts constituted under the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887)[or under the Berar
Small Cause Courts Law, 1905] or to Courts exercising the
jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes [under the said Act or
Law], [or to Courts in [any part of India to which the said Act
does not extend] exercising a corresponding jurisdiction] that is to
say-
(a) so much of this Schedule as relates to-
(i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small
Causes or the execution of decrees in such suits;
(ii) the execution of decrees against immovable property or the
interest of a partner in partnership property;
(iii) the settlement of issues; and
(b) the following rules and orders:-
 Order II, rule 1 (frame of suit);
 Order X, rule 3 (record of examination of parties);
 Order XV, except so much of rule 4 as provides for the
pronouncement at once of judgement;
 Order XVIII, rules 5 to 12 (evidence);
 Orders XLI to XLV (appeals);
 Order XLVII, rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (review);
 Order LI."
12. Section 5 provided for establishment of small causes courts
by the State Government. Chapter III of the Act deals with "Jurisdiction
of Courts of Small Causes". Section 15 of the Act provides: -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
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
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 [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."
13. The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P.
Act No. 37 of 1972) was enacted by Uttar Pradesh Legislature with the
Presidential assent. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of U.P. Act
No. 37 of 1972, which are relevant for understanding the Scheme and
purpose of the amendment are to the following effect:-
"Prefatory Note-Statement of Objects and Reasons.-(1)
The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, provides for a
summary procedure in the trial of suits. Moreover, the decisions
of such courts are not appealable, and only one revision is provided.
However such courts cannot take cognizance of suits for
possession of immovable property. By a recent amendment
contained in Section 20(6) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XIII of 1972),
eviction suits against the tenant after the expiration of his tenancy
have been taken out from the purview of this exception and have
been made cognizable by the small cause courts. This has been
done because in such suits the issues are usually simple. In cases
where the question of title comes to be in issue, a small cause
court has power to return the plaint for presentation to a regular
court. It is now proposed to delete the aforesaid amendment from
U. P. Act XIII OF 1972, and instead, to incorporate a wider
amendment directly in the Provincial Small Causes Court Act,
1887, so that all buildings, and not merely those buildings which
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
are governed by U. P. Act XIII of 1972, may be covered thereby.
It is further proposed that in respect of such suits the ordinary
small cause courts may be conferred jurisdiction to decide cases
of a value up to Rs. 5,000 (instead of only Rs. 2,000 in some
districts and Rs.1,000 in most districts, as at present) and that
cases of a higher value may be decided by District Judges sitting
as Judges of Small Causes, and revisions against such decisions
of District Judge shall lie to the High Court, while revision against
decisions of other Courts of Small Causes may continue to lie to
the District Judge.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
14. As per Section 15(1), a Court of Small Causes was not
competent to take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second
Schedule. Clause (4) of the Second Schedule of the Act was to the
following effect:-
"(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable property or for the
recovery of an interest in such property;"
15. By Act No. 37 of 1972 amendments were made in Section 15,
Section 25 and Second Schedule of the Act. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the
U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 provides as follows:-
"2. Amendment of Section 15 of Act IX of 1887.- In Section
15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as amended in
its application to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the
principal Act, in sub-section (3), the following proviso shall be
inserted, namely:
"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 such
determination of lease, the reference in this sub-section to two
thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to five
thousand rupees.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the
expression 'building' has the same meaning as in Article (4) in
the Second Schedule."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
3. Amendment of Section 25 of Act IX of 1887.- In Section
25 of the principal Act the following proviso thereto shall be
inserted, namely :
"Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District
Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of
Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this section
shall vest in the High Court."
4.