Small cause court jurisdiction and affidavit evidence: breach of contract claim was maintainable, but ex parte decree failed for inadmissible proof.

A suit for damages arising from cancellation of a government contract was treated as a claim for breach of contract, so it was not excluded from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under Article 3 because the complaint did not rest on a distinct official act or order done in exercise of office. On the ex parte decree issue, the affidavit relied on by the trial court was not properly verified, was not admissible in law, and no other admissible evidence supported the decree. The decree was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a suit for damages arising from cancellation of a government contract was excluded from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under Article 3 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance, 1950; (ii) whether the ex parte decree could be sustained on the basis of the affidavit relied upon by the trial court.

Issue (i): whether a suit for damages arising from cancellation of a government contract was excluded from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under Article 3 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance, 1950

Analysis: The decisive question was the foundation of the plaintiff's claim. The suit was treated as one essentially for breach of contract, and the communication by the Assistant Engineer merely evidenced the alleged refusal to adhere to the contract. The act complained of did not amount to a distinct official act or order done under authority of office so as to attract the exclusion in Article 3. The breach was also viewed as one which did not depend on any special official authority and was of the kind that could arise from ordinary contractual non-performance.

Conclusion: The suit was not excluded from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes.

Issue (ii): whether the ex parte decree could be sustained on the basis of the affidavit relied upon by the trial court

Analysis: The record showed no agreement permitting proof by affidavit and no order authorising that course. The affidavit was found not to have been properly verified and was therefore not admissible as an affidavit in law. In the absence of any other admissible evidence, the decree could not stand.

Conclusion: The decree was unsustainable for want of admissible evidence.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded in part, the decree of the court below was set aside, and the matter was sent back for a fresh trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit is excluded under the Small Cause Courts bar only when the claim is founded on a distinct act or order done by a government officer in official capacity, not when the real basis is mere breach of contract; an ex parte decree cannot be sustained on inadmissible affidavit evidence in the absence of other proof.

---