Law: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887)

Section: 23, 28

  (a) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), Ss. 23(1) & 28-A(1)----Concurrent jurisdiction of District Judge and Small Causes Judge-Provisions of two sections cannot be invoked simul taneously---Relief sought depending upon proof or disproof of title to immovable property or other title which Small Cause Court cannot finally determine---Proper forum in first instance: Small Cause Court. The Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the District Court administratively in all respects and also judicially in some respects i.e. with respect to the categories of cases enumerated in section 24 of the Small Cause Courts Act as also to the extent contemplated by section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Barring these the two Courts are independent of each other in the sense that a Small Cause Court is not subordinate to the District Court in its judicial capacity excepting the cases mentioned in section 24, Small Cause Courts Act and to the extent provided by section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Introduction of section 28-A by the Provincial Small Cause Court (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, however, has created a new relationship of concurrent jurisdiction, in that the District Judge has been empowered to decide whether a suit instituted in a Court of Small Causes can be adequately tried by it. This power in respect of suits involving complicated questions of title was so long exclusively exercisable by the Small Cause Court itself under section 23(1). Thus the new section 28-A and the original section 23 together have set up two different forums of concurrent jurisdiction in place of one single forum of exclusive jurisdiction under the latter for, determining whether a Court of Small Causes should try a suit filed before it or it should go before an ordinary civil Court for trial. It appears that for the purpose of determining the said question, i.e. whether a particular suit cannot be tried adequately, the power of the District Court is not restricted to the question of title and is thus wider in scope than that of the trial Court under section 23(t) but nothing really turns upon that for the present purpose. It is however important to note that…