Madhorao v. Amrit Rao

1. The defendant Amrit Rao had money dealings with the plaintiff Madhorao, and for the debts due on account of the money dealings he had executed three rujus in favour of the litter. These rujus were:

Rs. a. p. Dated 1 for 3,397 8 0 26-2-1912. 2 for 262 0 0 21-8-1912. 3 for 300 0 0 28-10-1912.

2. The plaintiff had filed Suit No. 32 of 1915 in the Court of the Junior Sub-Judge, Akola, for Rs. 3,824-14-6 on the ruju for Rs. 3,397-8-0, having admitted a payment of Rs. 1,000.

3. The defendant in that suit had pleaded three more payments of Rs. 1,000, Rs. 1,262 and Rupees 1,000, and had said that these four repayments had been made on account of not only the ruju then sued upon but also of the two other rujus for Rs. 262 and Rs. 300. The first issue framed in that suit referred to the three additional payments pleaded by the defendant which had been denied by the plaintiff. The Sub-Judge found that all these three re-payments had been made in addition to the one admitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has now filed the present suit in the Small Cause Court, Akola, for Rs. 855-1-6 on the two rujus for Rs. 262 and Rs. 300. The defendant's plea in the present suit is substantially the same as in the suit before the Subordinate Judge. He claims that he has re-paid altogether Rs. 4,262 towards all the three rujus, and he admits that Rs. 107-12-0 are due to the plaintiff after receiving credit for the balance of Rupees 4,262 after deducting the amount due to the plaintiff on the ruju for Rs. 3,397-8-0. In both cases the point substantially raised is: what was the total amount paid to the plaintiff on account of the dealings in respect of which the three rujus were executed. This point was decided in defendant's favour by the Subordinate Judge, and the defendant pleads that it is now res judicata, and I think his contention is correct, provided the Sub-Judge was competent to decide the present claim. It is, however, urged for the plaintiff that the Sub-Judge was not competent to decide the present suit as he was not exercising the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court. The reply to this is furnished by the judgment of Jenkins, C.J in Ghulappa v. Raghvendra (1904) 28 Bom 338. It was there held, in a like case, that the inability of the Subordinate Judge to enter, tain a claim of a Small Cause Court nature arose not from incompetence but from the existence of another Court with preferential jurisdiction and the Subordinate Judge's decision was held to be res judicata with regard to the claim in the Small Cause Court. This application for revision is dismissed with costs.

P.N/R.K

4. Application dismissed.