Ravji Kala vs Harishanker and Others

Chhatpar, J.—This is a revision application to revise an order of the Deputy Collector, Gondal, passed under the Mamlatdars'' Courts Ordinance. The opponents had filed a suit against the applicant, for possession of agricultural land which was leased for the purpose of cultivation to the applicant by a ''Khedukhat'' dated 14-5-1943 in the Court of the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars'' Courts Ordinance. The lease expired on St. 2005 Fagan Suid 2nd-1st. March 1949. The suit was filed on 21-6-50. The plaint comprised two paras only; the first para recited the particulars of the lease and the second the cause of action, which arose as the Defendant failed to surrender possession of the lands leased to him. It appears that on 26-6-50 the statement of the Defendant was recorded by the Mamlatdar and on the next day the Defendant filed a regular written statement to the plaint in which he pleaded that the lease was extended orally for one year and thereafter further extended for Anr. year at the end of the first year of extension. The Mamlatdar as well as Deputy Collector, to whom the revision application was made, both held that the lease was extended for one year after its expiry on 1-3-49, as inter alia it was proved that the Plaintiffs had accepted ''Vighoti'' for that year from the Defendant. But both the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector disbelieved the story of the Defendant as regards the second extension of the lease. Both of them consequently decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs and ordered the Defendant to surrender possession. Against this decisions the Defendant has filed the present revision application.

Mr. Joshi the learned advocate for the applicant has raised only one plea that the suit of the Plaintiffs was barred by limitation, as the Mamlatdars'' Courts Ordinance prescribes a period of six months for filing a suit from the date of the accrual of the cause of action. He has relied solely upon the allegations in the plaint itself, from which he argues that the Plaintiff himself had described the cause of action as arising at the expiry of the lease, that is, in March, 1949 and as the suit was filed on 21-6-50, it was prima facie time barred.

This is a revision application in a matter where a separate remedy is available to the Defendant by way of a suit as the orders passed under the Mamlatdars'' Courts Ordinance are not final and can be challenged in a suit in the ordinary Civil Courts by the aggrieved party. In the case of-Irbasappa Mallappa v. Basangowda Fakirgowda AIR 1920 Bom 67 (A), the Bombay High Court observed:

In our opinion, the Court should be slow to exercise its powers of revision u/s 115 of the Code unless the party applying to the Court has no other remedy. But in a case where the proceedings which are sought to be revised, are purely summary proceedings, which did not finally decide the dispute between the parties, then as far as we are concerned, we do not. think that we should exercise our powers of revision.

This was a case where an application for revision was made to challenge the order of the Collector under the Mamlatdars'' Courts Act. In an earlier case of-Nana Bayaji v. Pandurang Vasudev 9 Bom 97 (B), and which case was also under the Mamlatdars'' Courts Act, the Bombay High Court refused to interfere under its extraordinary jurisdiction, where the Mamlatdar was guilty of a formal error. In the present case the cause of action as stated in the plaint no doubt appears to show as if it arose in March 1949, when the original lease expired; but the Defendant did not raise the plea of limitation in the written statement but on the contrary he pleaded that the lease was extended. Both the lower Courts have accepted his plea of extension of lease for one year only. The defect in the proceedings could have been remedied by a simple amendment of the plaint admitting the extension for a year of the lease and stating that the cause of action arose in March or April 1950, when the first extension of the lease expired, in which case the suit should have been within time.

Under the circumstances of the present case, I do not think it fit to disturb the orders of the two lower Courts and interfere in the exercise of the extraordinary powers of the High Court. The revision application is therefore dismissed with costs.