Power to District Court to submit for revision proceeding had under mistake as to jurisdiction in small causes
Full Text
(1) Where it appears to a District Court that a Court subordinate thereto has, by reason of erroneously holding a suit to be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes or not to be so cognizable, failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, or exercised a jurisdiction not so vested, the District Court may, and if required by a party shall, submit the record to the High Court with a statement of its reasons for considering the opinion of the Subordinate Court with respect to the nature of the suit to be erroneous.
(2) On receiving the record and statement the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
(3) With respect to any proceedings subsequent to decree in any case submitted to the High Court under this rule, the High Court may make such order as in the circumstance appears to it to be just and proper.
(4) A Court subordinate to a District Court shall comply with any requisition which the District Court may make for any record or information for the purposes of this rule.
Plain English Summary
Empowers the District Court (and mandates it upon a party's application) to submit the record of a subordinate court to the High Court for revision where the subordinate court mistakenly exercised or declined jurisdiction regarding Small Cause cognizability; High Court passes appropriate remedial orders.
Key Legal Elements
- Subordinate Jurisdictional Error: Subordinate court erroneously assumed or refused Small Cause jurisdiction.
- Mandatory on Party's Request: District Court 'may' act of its own motion, but 'shall' submit the reference if requested by a party.
- Statement of Reasons: District Court details why the subordinate court's jurisdictional view is erroneous.
- Broad High Court Powers (Sub-rules 2 & 3): High Court can validate proceedings, direct retrial, or mold relief.
- Duty of Subordinate Courts (Sub-rule 4): Obligation to comply with District Court's file requisition.
Practical Note
Remedying Small Cause Jurisdictional Errors via District Court Reference: 1. Mandatory Character of Party's Requisition: In Oorappan v. Valayan (AIR 1951 Tr-Co 114) and Suresh Chandra v. Jagat Chandra (AIR 1928 Cal 668), the courts held that while the District Court has discretion to act suo motu, once an application is made by a party under Rule 7(1), the word 'shall' makes it obligatory for the District Court to submit the record and reference to the High Court. 2. Sub-rule (3) Cure for Technical Flaws: Under sub-rule (3), the High Court will not mechanically set aside a decree on the ground that the suit was tried under ordinary civil procedure instead of small cause procedure (or vice versa) unless the error caused a failure of justice on merits.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) जहां जिला न्यायालय को यह प्रतीत होता है कि उसके अधीनस्थ किसी न्यायालय ने, किसी वाद को लघुवाद न्यायालय द्वारा संज्ञेय या इस प्रकार संज्ञेय न मानने की भूल के कारण, विधि द्वारा उसमें निहित क्षेत्राधिकार का प्रयोग करने में विफलता की है अथवा ऐसे क्षेत्राधिकार का प्रयोग किया है जो उसमें इस प्रकार निहित नहीं था, वहां जिला न्यायालय वाद की प्रकृति के संबंध में अधीनस्थ न्यायालय की राय को त्रुटिपूर्ण समझने के अपने कारणों के विवरण सहित अभिलेख उच्च न्यायालय को प्रस्तुत कर सकेगा, और यदि किसी पक्षकार द्वारा ऐसी अपेक्षा की जाए तो अवश्य प्रस्तुत करेगा।
(2) अभिलेख और विवरण प्राप्त होने पर उच्च न्यायालय मामले में ऐसा आदेश कर सकेगा जैसा वह ठीक समझे।
(3) इस नियम के अधीन उच्च न्यायालय को प्रस्तुत किए गए किसी मामले में डिक्री के पश्चातवर्ती किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में, उच्च न्यायालय ऐसा आदेश कर सकेगा जैसा परिस्थितियों में उसे न्यायसंगत और उचित प्रतीत हो।
(4) जिला न्यायालय के अधीनस्थ कोई न्यायालय ऐसी किसी अध्यपेक्षा का अनुपालन करेगा जो जिला न्यायालय इस नियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए किसी अभिलेख या जानकारी हेतु करे।