TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the civil court could try claims which were not excepted by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and which, if within the pecuniary limit, were triable only by the Small Cause Court, and whether the jurisdictional objection could be examined at a late stage despite no earlier objection in the written statement.
Analysis: The claims in issue were not excepted by the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The provisions of Section 15 and Section 16 made it clear that suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes were not to be tried by any other court within its local limits. The rule permitting joinder of causes of action under Order 2, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure operated only subject to other statutory provisions, and could not be used to defeat the Small Cause Court scheme. The absence of an earlier objection in the written statement did not bar the court from examining its jurisdiction whenever the question arose, since want of jurisdiction could be considered at any stage.
Conclusion: The civil court could not try the non-excepted Small Cause Court claims, and the jurisdictional objection was rightly entertained. The impugned order was erroneous.
Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was set aside, while liberty was left to the opposite party to relinquish the relevant claims in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Claims falling within the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes and not excepted by statute cannot be tried by another civil court, and the statutory bar is not displaced by joinder of causes of action under the general civil procedure rules.
TaxTMI 
