Baroo Vs. Shingram and anr.

Baroo vs Shingram and anr.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Allahabad Decided May 01, 1963

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/457784

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/457784
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.D. Singh, J.
Decided On: May 01, 1963
Case Number: Civil Revn. No. 426 of 1963
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - jurisdiction of Munsif - Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Sections 89(2)(a) and 89(2)(d) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - revision filed against decree of Nyaya Panchayat - Munsif quashing decree and trying suit himself - 89(2)(d) empowers Munsif to try suit under original jurisdiction - dec...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 96; Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 89(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Baroo

Advocate K.C. Agarwal, Adv.

Respondent

Shingram and anr.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 96; Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 89(2)
Reported In: AIR1964All347

Excerpt

civil - jurisdiction of munsif - section 96 of code of civil procedure, 1908 and sections 89(2)(a) and 89(2)(d) of u. p. panchayat raj act, 1947 - revision filed against decree of nyaya panchayat - munsif quashing decree and trying suit himself - 89(2)(d) empowers munsif to try suit under original jurisdiction - decree passed by munsif in original jurisdiction therefore appealable. - .....nyay panchayat, a revision was filed before munsif, muzaffarnagar, under section 89 of the u. p. nyay panchayat raj act, 1947. the munsif quashed the decree passed by the nyay panchayat and proceeded to try the suit himself under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 89. the suit was ultimately decreed. the defendants filed an appeal which was allowed by the additional civil judge, muzaffarnagar, and the suit dismissed. this is how the plaintiff has come in revision. 2. the contention of the applicant was that the munsif heard the suit in exercise of his jurisdiction as a court of revision under section 89 of the u. p. panchayat raj act, 1947, and consequently the decree passed by him was not appealable, and that the civil judge entertained and heard the appeal without jurisdiction. 3. the contention of the applicant has, however, no force. it is true that when the munsif quashed the decree passed by that nyay panchayat, he exercised his jurisdiction as a court of revision under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 89. clause (d) of the same sub-section entitled him to try the suit, himself. but the munsif having decided to try the suit himself, it cannot be said that he even heard and decided the same as a court of revision. once the munsif decided to try the suit himself, he proceeded thereafter as a court of original jurisdiction, though jurisdiction in the case was vested in him under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 89 of the act. the decree passed by the munsif will be governed by section 96 c. p. c. and appealable just as any other decree passed by him, unless the decree is made non-appealable under any specific provision of law. there is no provision in the u. p. panchayat raj act making a decree passed by a munsif under these circumstancesnon-appealable. the appeal did, therefore, lie to the district judge and the civil judge had jurisdiction to hear the same. 4. it was next contended that even if the munsif did not try the suit as a court.....

Full Judgment

S.D. Singh, J.

1. This revision arises out of a suit originally filed in the Nyay Panchayat. After the suit was decreed by the Nyay Panchayat, a revision was filed before Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 89 of the U. P. Nyay Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The Munsif quashed the decree passed by the Nyay Panchayat and proceeded to try the suit himself under Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89. The suit was ultimately decreed. The defendants filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, and the suit dismissed. This is how the plaintiff has come in revision.

2. The contention of the applicant was that the Munsif heard the suit in exercise of his jurisdiction as a court of revision under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and consequently the decree passed by him was not appealable, and that the Civil Judge entertained and heard the appeal without jurisdiction.

3. The contention of the applicant has, however, no force. It is true that when the Munsif quashed the decree passed by that Nyay Panchayat, he exercised his jurisdiction as a court of revision under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89. Clause (d) of the same sub-section entitled him to try the suit, himself. But the Munsif having decided to try the suit himself, it cannot be said that he even heard and decided the same as a court of revision. Once the Munsif decided to try the suit himself, he proceeded thereafter as a court of original jurisdiction, though jurisdiction in the case was vested in him under Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Act. The decree passed by the Munsif will be governed by Section 96 C. P. C. and appealable just as any other decree passed by him, unless the decree is made non-appealable under any specific provision of law. There is no provision in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act making a decree passed by a Munsif under these circumstancesnon-appealable. The appeal did, therefore, lie to the District Judge and the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to hear the same.

4. It was next contended that even if the Munsif did not try the suit as a court of revision, his jurisdiction would be that of a small causes court and no appeal would lie against his decree, on that account. Even this contention has no force. There is no provision either in the U. P. Panchayat Raj or elsewhere that when the Munsif decides to try the suit under Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89 aforesaid, he would sit as a Judge of a Small Cause Court.

5. The application in revision has no force and isconsequently dismissed.

Same Parties Baroo vs Shingram and anr. Same Subject Civil Same Judge S.D. Singh, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 96; Uttar Pra...

Civil