The Punjab Courts Act

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

information in books and make it universally accessible.
https://books.google.com
HDI
雞
UM
人
TS
金
……………
道
9
HL 3XTK .
黑中
3
為
捷
台
品
禮是
维
力
郵
D
細
麗
糖
滿
F
無
電
至
節
D
換
街
過
細
吧
滿劉
R D
這
個
濃
傷
善
食
福
E
飲
P
器
尋
是
小
【
高
S
團
無
藏
發
2
P
o
A
還
ma
0
C
ym
0
是
g
m
為
【
要讀
THE PUNJAB COURTS ACT ,
要書
OF
(XVIII OF 1884 )
寫寫
】
e
W
。
0
WITH NOTES
1
0
1
歌
BY
唱
MADAN GOPAL , M. A. ,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
2nd Edition. Price Rs. 3.

1
2
MUFID.I -AM -3PRESS, LAHORE,
TND.P
135
C866
897
bro Mathon
2/
E
IA
HA
RV
EM
AR
DI
AD
AN
AC
VE RI
E
CH
TAS
V
N
ON
HARVARD LAW LIBRARY
ReceivedAUG 17 1910
Canjib Shar Peiter
, the Judviny
c#
THE PUNJAB COURTS ACT
( XVIII OF 1884.)
WITH NOTES.
BY
MADAN GOPAL, M.A.,
Barrister-at-Law.
2nd Edition-Revised and Enlarged.
Lahore:
PRINTED BY RAI SAHIB MUNSHI GULAB SINGH & SONS, AT THE

MUFID-I-AM PRESS.
1897 .
7 / 6
7
39
7
19
d
u
s .P
5
3 b
1 b
8
C
7
9
8
AUG 17 1910
PREFACE.
THE reception accorded to the work has been sufficiently

favorable to justify a second edition . In this edition not only has
the whole work been thoroughly revised , but I have added a large
amount of new matter.
The Schedule to the Mofussil Small Cause Court Act
(showing what cases are not cognisable by such Courts) has been
fully annotated . The Suits Valuation Act, the rules framed under
it, and rulings bearing on it appear as a note to s. 3. Under s. 70,
have been collected all the cases (bearing on the power of revision)
decided up to date by the Chief Court and the High Courts.
The rules framed by the Chief Court relating to the (i)

hearing of cases by Single Judges . Benches of two or more
Judges and by Full Benches ; ( ii ) giving security on applications
for revision ; (iii) translation of documents ; (iv) preparation and
expense of Paper -books ; (v) petition-writers ; (vi) supply of

copies ; (vii ) inspection of records ; (viii) appointments , etc., of
Munsifs are all given in their proper places .
MADAN GOPAL.
July 1897.
INTRODUCTION ."
THE territories now administered by the Punjab Government

were not acquired at one and the same time. Different portions
were annexed at different times .
They may be grouped as follows :—

I. The Cis- Sutlej possessions of Maharaja Dulip Singh,
annexed by the Proclamation of the Governor- General, dated the
13th December 1845, issued after the Sikh Army had crossed the
Sutlej to invade the British Territories .
II. The Jullundhur Doab and the District of Kangra,
annexed by the British Government, at the close of the First Sikh
War by Governor- General's Proclamation , dated the 14th January
1846 , and ultimately ceded by the Sikh Government by the Treaty
of Lahore, dated the 9th March 1846.
III. The Punjab west of the Bias annexed at the close of

the Second Sikh War by Proclamation , dated the 29th March 1849,
declaring the kingdom of the Punjab to be at an end, and all the
territories of Maharaja Ranjit Singh to become a portion of the
British Empire in India .
IV. The Delhi territory transferred to the Punjab Govern

ment after the suppression of the Mutiny in 1858.
V. The Ambala Division ; Ambala and its neighbourhood are
intimately connected with the earliest dawn of Indian history. The
strip of country between the Saraswati and the Ghaggar is the
Holy Land of the Hindu Faith, the first permanent home of the
Aryas and the spot in which their religion took shape. Thanesar,
Pehowa and Kurukshetra are the chief centres of attraction- the
first two for their religious sanctity, the last because of its
being the field on whichthe great conflict of the Panduas and Kurus
was fought. For the purposes of showing how this territory
came into British hands, it will be quite enough to call to mind
the history of India after the death of Aurangzeb. As the central
power of the Empire relaxed under the blows of the Marhattas on
the one side and the Durani on the other, the Sikh marauders of
the Panjab Proper began to extend their encroachments beyond
the Sutlej , and ere long acquired for themselves the heart of the
country between that river and the Jamna . At the time of the fall of
Compiled from various sources.

ii INTRODUCTION .
the Marhattas before the English in 1803 , the whole tract was par
celled out among chiefs of various grades ofpower, from the Phulkian
Rajas of Patiala , Jhind and Nabha, down to the petty Sardar who
had succeeded in securing, by violence or fraud, the possession of
a few villages . When all that was to be had for the mere taking
was assumed , each leader began to look upon his neighbour. The
less powerful were absorbed by the stronger, and the stronger
fought among themselves. The smallest acquisition made by
one chief was a source of jealousy to his neighbours, and a head
long spirit of grasping was everywhere rampant. Thus matters
went on till Ranjit Singh made his appearance on the south bank
of the Sutlej . Afraid of him, the disconnected chiefs combined in
1808 to apply to the British Government to take them under its
protection . By the treaty of 1809 , between the Government and
Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Cis- Sutlej Chiefs were forever secured
from encroachments from the north . Beyond forbidding internal
wars , the British Government did not interfere with their powers.
and privileges. Each chief had within his own territory absolute
civil, criminal and fiscal jurisdiction . The right to escheats was
the sole return for its protection , which the Government demand
ed . During the First Sikh War these chiefs did not render any
loyal assistance to the British Government. In internal admin
istration they abused its indulgence , and made the security of its
protection a means of extortion and excess of every kind. The
Government, therefore , resolved upon a reduction of their privileges .
The police jurisdiction of most of the chiefs was abolished , also all
transit and custom duties. A commutation was accepted for the
personal service of the chief and his contingent . The police
jurisdiction was made over to European officers . The political
agency of Ambala was transformed into a Commissionership , with
subordinates under the titles of Deputy and Assistant Com
missioners who took up the Judicial and Executive functions of
the chiefs . This was in November 1816. After the conclusion
of the Second Sikh War it having become apparent that the chiefs
deprived of their police jurisdiction were unable to collect their
revenue, it was declared that all the smaller chiefs should cease to
hold sovereign power, should lose all Civil, Criminal and Fiscal
jurisdiction, and should be considered as no more than ordinary
subjects of the British Government . The revenues were still to
be theirs , but were to be assessed by British officers and under
British rules . The whole administration now vested in the
British Government and was placed under the superintendence
of the Board of Administration at Lahore.
VI. The hill territory acquired from the Gurkhas after the
Nepalese War of 1814-1816 .
INTRODUCTION. iii
The first two groups were formed into two Commissionerships

and placed under the Agent to the Governor- General, North -West
Frontier, Lahore. On the annexation of the third, a Board of
Administration was constituted for all three and orders passed- (i)
establishing a system of Criminal Law founded partly on the old
Regulations and partly upon native institutions and practices ; (ii)
placing the Civil Laws of the Hindu , Muhammadan and Sikh
communities upon the same footing as in the Regulation Provinces ;
(iii) establishing a comparatively simple form of Civil Proce
dure, and ( ie ) introducing a Revenue system resembling that of
the North- Western Provinces . Functionaries were appointed
who were vested with judicial , fiscal and magisterial powers. The
first officers appointed were designated the Board , Commissioners,
Deputy Commissioners , Assistant and Extra Assistant Commis
sioners and Kardars . Express directions were given relating to
the right of appeal. An appeal was allowed from the order of a
Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner, whose order was
ordinarily final , but the Board could suo motu or on cause being
shown by a dissatisfied party call for the record of a case and pass
such order as to it seemed fit.
In 1853, the Board was abolished , and its powers and func
tions vested in the Chief Commissioner of the Punjab. A Judi
cial and a Financial Commissioner were appointed subordinate to
him , and their powers and duties determined ; (see Resolution ofthe
Governor-General in Council, Foreign Department, dated the 4th
February 1853) .
By Resolution, dated the 12th April 1854 , the judicial powers
of Assistant and Extra Assistant Commissioners were defined , and
a Departmental Examination prescribed which every official
employed subsequent to the 1st January 1850, had to undergo.
An Assistant or Extra Assistant who had passed the first standard
was vested with powers in civil suits not exceeding Rs . 500 in value.
On passing the second standard he became qualified to decide
civil suits to the extent of Rs . 5,000 . An appeal from such Assist
ant lay to the Commissioner direct. The Kardars were sub
sequently designated Tahsildars , and invested with power to try
suits of a value less than Rs . 300. From the 1st January 1859,
a separate Lieutenant- Governorship was established and all the
territories above described constituted his jurisdiction . The rules,
orders and regulations, made by the Local Government subsequent
to this date, acquired the force of law under Section 25 of the
Indian Councils ' Act, 1861 .
In 1854 , the Judicial Commissioner circulated for the guid

ance of all officers in the Judicial Department the compendium
commonly called the Punjab Civil Code-about the authority of
iv INTRODUCTION .
which Code there was a long continued discussion which has at

present none but an academic value . ( See 125 P. R. 1867 , and 126,
P. R. 1870).
The first section of the Punjab Civil Code, that relating to

the powers and competency of the Civil Courts was replaced by
the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act VIII of 1859) the Punjab Courts'
Act (XIX of 1865 ) and the Chief Court Act ( IV of 1866 ) .
By Act XIX of 1865, seven grades of courts were established

in the Punjab. These were :
(i ) the court of the Tahsildar. The Local Government was

authorized to invest a Tahsildar with power to try suits
not exceeding Rs . 300 in value or amount.
(ii ) The court of the Assistant Commissioner with ordinary
powers , i. e. , with power to try suits not exceeding Rs . 100
in value.
(iii ) the court of the Assistant Commissioner with special
powers ; to try suits not exceeding Rs . 500 in value .
(iv ) the court of the Assistant Commissioner with full powers ;

with power to try suits under Rs . 10,000 in value .
(v.) the court of the Deputy Commissioner ; with power to try
suits without limitation in value, and to hear appeals from
the decisions of the first three Courts.
(ri. ) the court of the Commissioner ; with power to try suits

without limitation in value and to hear appeals from the
decisions of Courts (ir) and (v.)
(vii ) the court of the Judicial Commissioner ; subsequently

merged in the Chief Court of the Punjab created by Act IV
of 1866.
In 1868 was passed Act VII of that year to amend the law
relating to appeals in the Punjab . This Act was re- enacted with
out prescribing any period for its continuance by Act IX of 1873 ,
called the Punjab Appeals Act. Section 5 of this Act provided
for a second regular appeal in cases where the two lower courts
differed on a point material to the merits of the case. The Punjab
Judicial Administration Act XXV of 1875 , repealed the Act of
1865 with respect to the powers of a Deputy Commissioner and
Tahsildar and authorised the Local Government to confer all or
any of the powers of a Deputy Commissioner or Tahsildar on any
person they thought fit .
Under this Act, the Local Government invested Judicial

Assistant Commissioners with the powers of a Deputy Commissioner
and appointed Munsiffs to relieve Tahsildars of Judicial duties.
When the Punjab Administration was first organised , all officers,
INTRODUCTION. Τ
as has been stated, were invested with Civil and Criminal juris
diction, in addition to their revenue and executive functions.
This was the arrangement best suited to the earlier days of the
administration of a new province, and was attended with many
advantages. But it was almost inevitable that in the administra
tion of an extensive province, some division of labour should
become necessary. The growth of population , the extension of
agriculture, the development of trade, the steady increase of liti
gation , the introduction of a stricter system of law and procedure ,
and the increasing demands of the central administration upon
local officers, all added to the amount of work to be done . It,
therefore, became necessary to increase the number of officers,
and to arrange for the distribution of work between them .
Act XIX of 1865 and IV of 1866 were repealed by Act XVII

of 1877. The constitution of the courts remained the same,
except that instead of seven grades, there became eight, the court
of the Tahsildar being sub -divided into two -that invested with
ordinary powers and a higher invested with special powers.
Another change, of a nominal character, however, was that allow
ing further appeals ; Section 38. This replaced the second
regular appeal of the old Act .
In 1884, the Secretary of State sanctioned a scheme for the

re-organization of the Civil Administration of the Punjab. For
the purpose of giving effect to this scheme and for improving the
judicial agency, it became necessary to appeal the old Act, and
include the whole law in a new Act . This was done by Act
XVIII of 1884 by which the appellate system was materially
altered, and a further step was taken to relieve from judicial duties
officers employed in the Revenue and General administration ofthe
province. The number of appeals to the Chief Court had been
annually increasing, and had for several years been greatly in excess
of what three Judges- the permanent strength of the Court
could dispose of. It had consequently become necessary from
time to time to appoint additional Judges to clear of arrears. It
was now thought advisable to reduce the number off appeals to the
Chief Court by giving greater finality to the decisions of the
lower appellate courts . At first it was proposed that (a ) seven
Divisional Courts be constituted , ordinarily consisting of two
Judges, each taking the place of Commissioners , who should
be relieved of all judicial duties, and (b) certain classes of suits
relating to land, which it was thought could be better disposed of
by Revenue officers than by purely judicial officers, should
be transferred from the Civil to the Revenue Courts. With refer
ence to the constitution of the Divisional Courts, it was thought
that if these courts consisted of two Judges each, this would
vi INTRODUCTION .
strengthen them for appellate purposes, and allow of finality being

given to their decisions. It was considered that where two
Judges concurred in reversing or modifying the decision of a
subordinate Court, there would be less reason for allowing a
further appeal to the Chief Court than where a single judge
had come to a different decision from that of the first Court .
As the constitution of appellate courts consisting of more than
one Judge was, however, in the nature of an experiment, it was
ultimately thought desirable to give greater elasticity by enacting
that a Divisional Court may consist of one or more Judges,
as the Local Government may think expedient and necessary
with reference to the circumstances of the case. Again , it was
originally proposed that the second appeal on a question of law
or custom allowed by the Civil Procedure Code in suits other
than Small Causes, and the further appeal on the whole case
allowed by the Punjab Courts Act of 1877, should both be
taken away, and the decisions of appellate Courts be made final,
except that the Judges of a Divisional Court be enabled when
they differed as to the judgment which should be passed on au
appeal, or when some question of law or custom or general inter
est be involved, to grant a certificate permitting a further appeal to
the Chief Court, if they thought the case of sufficient importance
to justify a further appeal. While on the one hand it was thought
that no man had a right to unlimited draughts on judicial time
and judicial power and to grant an unlimited right of appeal is
not fair to the general tax -payer and a cruel kindness to the
suitor himself-on the other hand it was thought that an entire
restriction on the right of access to the Chief Court would be
exceedingly unpopular. Ultimately, it was resolved that limita
tions on the right of second appeals should be framed with
reference to the nature of the suit and to the value of its subject
matter. In the case of ordinary money claims, suits of the class
ordinarily called Small Causes, where the value does not exceed
Rs. 500, one appeal only was allowed- there was to be no further
appeal. In other cases, if the value of the suit exceeded Rs. 500 ,
an absolute right of further appeal was granted -also in cases
below that value if the appellate Court consisting of a single
Judge reversed or modified the decision of the Court below; then
there being one Judge against one , a further appeal as of right
was granted --as also in the case where the appeal be heard by a
Bench of two, and the two did not agree.
Owing to the limitations hus placed on the right of appeal

and the greater finality given to appellate decisions - and the vver
different views of the seope ofSection 622, Civil Procedure Code,
that had been taken by thedifferent High Conrts in India, a fear was
INTRODUCTION . vii
entertained that the number of possible applications for revision

would increase, and consequently the word " illegally," was struck
out so far as this province was concerned and the fee leviable on
revision applications increased.
As a tentative measure seven Divisional Courts presided over

by two Judges each were at first established , the power to appoint
Divisiona! Judges to sit singly remaining in abeyance . But ,
before many months had elapsed, it was found that the amount of
work coming before the Divisional Benches was much greater
than had been anticipated , and these Courts rapidly fell into hope
less arrears . This state of things led to much correspondence, and
eventually the Local Government came to the conclusion that the
advantages of the Bench system were more than outweighed by
the disadvantages . The Benches were dissolved and thirteen
single Judges appointed in their place The result of this was a
very large increase in the number of further appeals for disposal
by the Chief Court. It was found quite impossible even with six
Judges to prevent the accumulation of very heavy arrears. In
1888, an amending Bill was introduced to relieve this block of
work. Suits were divided into three classes ; (i ) small causes ,
(ii) land suits , (iii ) unclassed suits . District Judges
empowered to hear appeals in unclassed suits up to a certain value,
thus relieving Divisional Courts ; and further appeals in these
were forbidden altogether. The value of suits, in which an unre
stricted further appeal lay, was raised to Rs . 1,000 , except in land
suits where a further appeal was allowed as of right when the
two Courts differed . A material alteration was made in the
matter of certificate appeals- whereas in the Act of 1884 the
refusal of a Divisional Judge to grant a certificate was final, pro
vision was now made for application to the Chief Court from the
order declining to grant the certificate . Subject to slight and
immaterial amendments this Bill was passed and incorporated into
the Panjab Courts Act 1884. .
it
THE PUNJAB COURTS ACT,
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY.
SECTIONS.
1. Short title, local extent and commencement.
2. [ Repealed. ]
3. Definitions.
CHAPTER II.
THE CHIEF COURT.
4. Constitution of Chief Court and appointment and tenure of judges.

5. Rank and precedence of Judges of Chief Court.
6. Civil appellate jurisdiction.
7. Criminal jurisdiction.
8. Delegation of power to members of Court.
9. Appeals from original jurisdiction of Chief Court.
10. Rule of decision when Judges differ.
11. Power to refer question to full bench.
12. Ministerial officers.
13. Superintendence and control of Subordinate Courts.
14. Power to make rules.
15. Registers, books, accounts and statements to be kept and furnished by
Chief Court.
16. Procedure of Chief Court in exercise of civil jurisdiction.
CHAPTER III.
THE SUBORDINATE CIVIL COURTS.
Classes of Courts.
17. Classes of Courts.
Territorial Divisions.
18. Civil divisions and Districts.

Divisional and District Courts.
19. Establishment of Divisional Courts.

20. Establishment of District Courts.
21. Distribution of business in Divisional Court.
22. Original jurisdiction of Divisional and District Courts in suits.
23 District Court to be principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
CONTENTS.
ii
SECTIONS.
Subordinate Judges and Munsifs.
24. Appointment of Subordinate Judges.
25. Appointment of Munsifs ,
26. Pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of Subordinate Judges and Munsifs .
27. Local limits of their jurisdiction .
28. Special Judges and Benches .
29. [ Repealed . ] .
Small Cause Jurisdiction.
30. Power to confer Small Cause Court jurisdiction .
Suspension and Removal.
31. Suspension and Removal .
Valuation of Suits.
32. [ Repealed. ]
Adminstrative Control.
Cont roll ing powe rs of Divisional and District Courts .
33.
34. Power of Divisional Court to transfer business.
35. Power to distribute business.
36. Ministerial officers of Subordinate Courts.
37. Power to fine ministerial officers.
38. Delegation of District Judge's powers .
CHAPTER IV.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES.
39. Appeals from original decrees .

40. Appeals from appellate decrees of Divisional Courts.
41. Appellate decrees of District Judge or Divisional Court otherwise
final.
42. Power to confer appellate jurisdiction on Subordinate Judges.
43. Period of limitation .
44. Reference to Chief Court under section 617 of Code of Civil Procedure.
CHAPTER V.
REVENUE COURTS.
45-61 . [ Repealed. ]
CHAPTER VI.
SETTLEMENT COURTS.
62-63 Repealed . ]
CHAPTER VII.
SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
64. Mode of appointment and conferring powers.

65. Powers exerciseable from time to time.
66. Place of sitting of Courts.
CONTENTS. iii
SECTIONS.
67. Vacations.
68. [ Repealed.
69. Repealed. ]}
70. Modification of section 622 of Civil Procedure Code.
71 . Amendment of the first schedule annexed to the Court-fees Act, 1870 .
72. Refund of fee paid on application for revision .
73. Saving of certain appointments, rules, forms, notifications , powers and
orders.
74. [ Repealed. ]
75. Appointment of Additional Divisional and District Judges.
76. Transfer of proceedings.
THE SCHEDULE.--[ Repealed. ]

THE PUNJAB COURTS ACT .
ACT No. XVIII OF 1884 .
PASSED BY THE GOVERNOR - GENERAL OF INDIA IN COUNCIL . Sections 1-3.
(Received the assent of the Governor- General on the 3rd October 1884.)
An Act to amend the Law relating to Courts in the Punjab.
i WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the law relating to Courts

' n the Punjab ; and whereas the Secretary of State for India in
Council has given his previous sanction to the passing of this Act ;
It is hereby enacted as follows : —
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY.
1. (1 ) This Act may be called the Punjab

Courts Act, 1884.
(2.) It extends to the territories for the
time being under the administration of the
Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab ; and
(3 ) It shall come into force on the first

day of November, 1884 .
2. [ Repeal of Acts .] Repealed by Act XII . of 1891 .
3. In this Act, unless there is something
repugnant in the subject or context :
(1) " small cause " means a suit of the nature
cognizable by a Court of Small Causes under the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act , 1887.
The following suits are excepted from the cognizance of a

Court of Small Causes :
(1) A suit concerning an act or order purporting to be done or made

by the Governor-General in Council or Local Government, or by the
Governor-General or a Governor or by a Member of the Council of the
Governor-General or of the Governor of Madras or Bombay, in his official
capacity, or concerning an act purporting to be done by any person by
order of the Governor -General in Council or a Local Government.
Notes.
The Municipality at Tuticorin demanded Rs. 50 as profession tax from the
South Indian Railway Company which had already paid profession tax to the
PUNJAB COUrts . [ACT XVIII
Municipality at Negapatam . The Company complied with the demand under

Section 3.
protest and sued the Municipality for a refund of the amount paid on the Small
Schedule S. C. Canse side of the District Munsif's Court . Held, the Court had jurisdiction to
hear and determine the suit, Schedule 11 , Clause 1 , of the Provincial Small
C. Act.
Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) is not applicable to such a suit. Tuticorin
Municipality South Indian Railway Company. I. L. R. 13 Madras , 78.
(2) A suit concerning an act purporting to be done by any person
in pursuance of a judgment or order of a Court or of a judicial officer
acting in the execution of his office.
Notes.
NC granted a lease of three plots of land to B S. The heirs of the former
lessee brought a suit against NC and BS, to recover possession of the same
three plots of land . The suit was decreed with costs ; and the costs, amounting
to Rs . 80 and annas 5 , were recovered from B S alone. Thereupon B S brought
this suit against N C in the Court of Small Causes at Pubna for the recovery
of that amount . Held, that the suit was one which did not come under Articles
2, 41 , 42 or 44 of Schedule II , Act IX of 1887 , and was cognizable by the Small
Cause Court . Biswa Nath Shah v. Naba Kumar Chowdhary. I. L. R. 15 ,
Cal. 713.
A Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought by an
execution -purchaser of immovable property for recovery of his purchase -money ,
on the ground that the judgment -debtor had no saleable interest therein , and
the purchaser had for that reason been deprived of it . Neither Article 2 nor
Article 35, Clause ( j ) , Schedule II , Act IX of 1887, excludes such a suit from
the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts . Prasanna Kumar Khan v. Uma
Charan Hazra, Calcutta Weekly Notes , Vol. I, page 140.
(3 ) A suit concerning an act or order purporting to be done or
made by any other officer of the Government in his official capacity, or by
a Court of Wards , or by an officer of a Court of Wards in the execution
of his office .
Notes.
A suit based upon an alleged breach of contract by a Government Railway
Company to deliver goods entrusted to them in the ordinary way as Agents of
Government for conveyance to a specified place cannot be rightly described as a
99 such as is contemplated by Article 3 of the
g 66 an official act
suit con
2nd Sch cer
edu nin
le of the Pro vin cia l Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
Before a suit can be held to fall under Article 3, the plaintiff must be able
to allege some particular act of some particular official, which has given rise to
the suit, and such act must not be a mere omission or neglect of duty such as
any private individual might be guilty of, but must be some definite act pur
porting to be done by the official under the authority of his office and reasonably
falling within the scope of such authority. I. L. R. 17 Calcutta 290, cited.
Messrs. Punjab Rai and Co. , - (Plaintiff) —Petitioners v. The Secretary of
State for India in Council,- (Defendant ) , --Respondent. P. R. 97 of 1894.
A suit was brought against the Secretary of State in a Mofussil Small
Cause Court for compensation for damages done to an oil-mill by the officials of
Held, that the suit was not within Article 3,
the
Schedu le
Nal IIi ofSta
hat te IX
Act Raiof y . 7 , and that it was cognizable by the Small Cause
lwa188
Court. Bunwari Lal Mookerjee v . Secretary of State for India. I. L. R. 17.
Calcut
Theta plai .
290 ntif fs , being the lessees of a settled zamindari , brought a suit in a
Small Cause Court against a Karnam in the zamindari to recover damages
sustained by reason of the defendant's default in keeping certain accounts , &c,
2
1884. ] PUNJAB COURTS .
Held, that the Karnam was not an officer of Government, and that the Section. 3,
suit was. maintainable under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act . Orr and
another (Plaintiffs) v. Neelamegam Pillai and others, — (Defendants) . I. L. R. 18 Schedule S. C.
Madras 395. C. Act.
(4) A suit for possession of immoveable property or for the recovery

of an interest in such property .
Notes.
In a suit for the recovery of a certain share in the profits of inam villages,
of which the defendant was the manager, the only relief claimed by the plaintiff's
being payment of money, namely, Rs. 130. Held, that the suit was for money
had and received for plaintiffs ' use, and was cognizable by the Court of Small
Causes. It did not fall under Clause (4) of Schedule II of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act ( IX of 1887) , as it was not a suit for the possession of immove
able property, or for recovery of an interest in such property. If the plaintiffs
had alleged that the defendant had " wrongfully received " the plaintiffs ' share
of profits, then the suit would have fallen under Clause (31 ) , Schedule II of
the Act. Damodar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve. I. L. R. 17
Bombay 42.
A suit for the recovery of damages for the use and occupation of land is
within the jurisdiction of the Mofussil Small Cause Courts . Makhan Lal Datta
v. Goribullah Sardar. I. L. R. 17 Calcutta 541 .
(5) A suit for the partition of immoveable property.
(6) A suit by a mortgagee of immoveable property for the fore
closure of the mortgage or for the sale of the property or by a mortgagor
of immoveable property for the redemption of the mortgage.
Notes.
Standing crops are immoveable property in the sense of the General Clauses
Consolidation Act ( 1 of 1868) , and of Schedule II, Clause 6 of the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act. A Small Cause Court, therefore, is not competent to
try a suit for enforcement of lien in respect of standing crops. Cheda Lal
Mul Chand, Muidai v. Kundan Singh. I. L. R. 14 All, 30.
(7) A suit for the assessment, enhancement, abatement or apportion
ment of the rent of immoveable property .
Notes.
Held, that a suit for rent of a house, including rent at an enhanced rate
as agreed upon, was cognizable by the Small Cause Court alone, and had been
66
erroneously treated as an unclassed suit " by the Courts below.
Held, also, that the defect of want of jurisdiction could not be cured by
consent of parties, and that the objection, though urged for the first time in the
Chief Court and by the plaintiff, must be given effect to. Haji Ahmad
Husain (Plaintiff) -Petitioner v. Sundar Lal- (Defendant) -Respondent. P. R.
No. 80 of 1893.
·
(8) A suit for the recovery of rent, other than house-rent, unless
the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested
by the Local Government with authority to exercise jurisdiction with
respect thereto .
Notes.
A suit for Rs. 27 as money due for the use of a masonry outlet, or Moga,
alleged to be the property of the plaintiff, for the irrigation of defendants' land,
held to be a suit for the recovery of a sum in the nature of rent, and not being
3
PUNJAB COURTS . [ACT XVIII
for house-rent to be a suit not cognizable by a Small Canse Court (Article 8

Section 3.
of the Second Schedule of Act IX of 1887) : and further, that the mere exist
Schedule S. C. ence of an agreement for the payment of such money, the suit being one for
rent, would not give the Small Cause Court jurisdiction , which it would not
C. Act.
otherwise possess . Maharaja of Kashmir v. Fateh Din . (No. 164 P.R. 1888 , Civil) .
A claim for recovery of rent merely of the site on which stands a house not
claimed by the plaintiff is one that falls either under Article 8 or under Article 11
of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Court Act 1887, and is
sh and
excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court . Mulla Bakh
Nathu v. Mirza Anwar Ali . P. R. No. 1 of 1894.
A suit, by the proprietor of a basti land, for the recovery of Municipal
Taxes from the owner of a hut in the basti, is cognizable by the Provincial
Small Cause Courts. Brojo Nath Mittra v. Gopi Shakrani. I. I. R. 23 Calcutta
835.
A suit for produce-rent or its money-value is a suit for rent under the
Bengal Tenancy Act and not a suit for damages for breach of contract, and
a a
therefore is not cognizable by a Provincial Small Cause Court. Shom Meht
Calcutta Weekly Note, Volume I, page 55, see
and others v. Rajani Biswas.
page 56.
(9) A suit concerning the liability of land to be assessed to land
revenue ;
(10) A suit to restrain waste ;
(11) A suit for the determination or enforcement of any other right
to or interest in immoveable property .
Plaintiffs sued on the allegations that he and defendants Nos . 4-8 were
co-sharers in certain lands ; that the defendants Nos. 1-3 in Sambat 1949
forcibly cut and carried away certain reeds which grew upon the said land, and
of which the total value was Rs . 741-11-0 ; that plaintiff's share was Rs. 296-10-9,
and that as defendants Nos . 4-8 would not join plaintiff in the claim, they had
been impleaded as defendants . The defendants Nos . 5-8 admitted the claim, but
defendants Nos . 1-3 contested it. The Munsif having decreed the claim in
part, defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Judge , and on his appeal being
rejected , applied to the Chief Court on the revision side, on the grounds that
the suit was either one cognizable only by a Revenue Court under Clause (k)
of Section 77 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or an unclassed suit over
Rs. 100 in value and as such, excluded from the cognizance of Small Cause
Court by Article ( 11 ) or Article ( 31) of Act IX of 1887.
Held, that the suit being for damages for the wrongful removal of the
produce of immoveable property, and not for the enforcement of any right
to, or interest in, immoveable property, was not excluded from the cognizance
of the Small Cause Court by Article ( 11 ) of the Second Schedule of Act IX of
1887.
Nazam and others v . Joti Mal, P. R. No. 119 of 1894.
Plaintiff sued for Rs. 328 as compensation for damage caused by defendant
to plaintiff by wrongfully ousting him from land to which he alleged he was
entitled under a lease to cultivate for one year, the measure of damages being
the profit which he could have made by such cultivation . The title of plaintiff as
lessee was put in issue.

Held, that the suit was one cognizable by a Small Cause Court. Dul Singh
and others v. Bhupa and others . P. R. No. 80 of 1896.
A suit to recover value of produce which by contract should have come to
plaintiff, but was illegally taken by defendant does not come under this clause.
Joti Mal v. Bhola Nath. Unpublished Ruling No. 2290 of 1888.
4
1884. ] PUNJAB COURTS.
When a suit is brought in a form cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, 'Section 3.

that Court cannot decline jurisdiction, because a question of title to immoveable
property is incidently raised. Schedule S. C.
C. Act.
It is the nature of the suit as brought by the plaintiff, and not the nature
of the defence, that determines whether or not the Court of Small Causes has
jurisdiction. Clause (g) of Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts
Act ( XV of 1882) refers to suits brought expressly for the purpose of obtaining
a decree determining a right or interest in immoveable property and cannot
include a suit brought for moveable property, or money in which a question
of title may be raised by the defendant.
The plaintiffs sued in the Presidency Court of Small Causes to recover
fazendari- rent from the holder of fazendari land . The defendant pleaded that
no rent had been paid for the land since 1846 ; that the claim was time-barred,
and that the plaintiffs had no title to the land in question . The Judges of the
Court of Small Causes dismissed the suit, on the ground that the defence raised a
bonâ fide question of title to immovable property, which ousted their jurisdiction.
Held, reversing the Lower Court's decision, that the suit was cognizable by
the Court of Small Causes. Bapuji Raghunath . Kuvarji Edulji Umragar.
I. L. R. 15 Bombay 400.
(12) A suit for the possession of an hereditary office or of an interest
in such an office , including a suit to establish an exclusive or periodically
recurring right to discharge the functions of an office .
( 13) A suit to enforce payment of the allowance or fees respectively
called Malikana and Hakk, or of cesses or other dues when the cesses or dues
are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property
or in an hereditary office or in a shrine or other religious institution .
Notes.
A suit by certain Acharajs to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 20,
being the virt realized by him upon a death occurring on a date, which according
to the plaintiffs was allotted to them alone, held to be cognizable by a Small
Cause Court under Act IX of 1887, and not to fall within Article 13 of the
Second Schedule of that Act, as a suit to enforce payment of dues payable to
the plaintiff.
The above Article, as it stands, must be limited to suits against the person
by whom the dues are payable, or his legal representatives and cannot be
extended to suits to recover dues, which have been paid, from the person to
whom they have been wrongfully paid. Harnam v. Ganda. (No. 81 P. R. 1887,
Civil).
A suit for a certain share of offerings received at a shrine for a certain
period, the plaintiffs claiming as rightful successors to the former incumbent,
the defendants being, one, the manager of the Golden Temple, who held the
money in dispute in safe custody only, and the other defendant a rival
claimant, who set up a title as donee, is a " Small Cause." Jowahir Singh and
Puran Singh v. Sardar Man Singh and another. (No. 81 P. R. 1892, Civil. )
Plaintiff in his plaint alleged by implication that he held a lease

under Government of the grazing rights over a certain parade ground and
(apparently) that defendant entered into an agreement with him under which
he was allowed to graze cattle on the land, and became liable to pay for so
doing the sum of Rs. 7-13-0.
Held, that the parade ground, of which plaintiff held a lease, not being an
"estate" as defined in Section 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the suit,
though one for money due on account of grazing dues, did not fall under
Clause (o) of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and was cognizable
by the Civil Court.
ŏ
PUNJAB COURTS. [ACT XVIII
Section 8. Held, further that if plaintiff's allegation was merely that he held a lease
of the parade ground, and that by virtue of such lease and apart from any
Schedule B. C. agreement, he was entitled to demand certain dues from all persons grazing
C. Act.
cattle on the land, the suit was one for dues payable to plaintiff " by reason of
his interest in immoveable property " within the meaning of Article (13) of the
Second Schedule of the Small Cause Court Act , 1887, and as such excepted from
the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Otherwise, if the claim was based
on an express agreement by the defendant to pay certain rates . Khuda
Bakhsh v. Dana. (No. 13 P. R. 1895 , Civil).
A suit, by the proprietor of a busti land for the recovery of Municipal
taxes from the owner of a hut in the busti, is cognizable by the Provincial
Small Cause Courts. Brojo Nath Mittra v. Gopi Shakrani, I. L. R. 23 Cal.
835.
Where plaintiff sued for arrears of Kathibadi and Karnam's emoluments ,
the value of the suit being less than Rs. 500.
Held, that Kathubadi and Karnam's emoluments are neither a charge on
or interest in immoveable property and that no second appeal lay. Mullapudi
Balakrishnayya v . Venkalanarasimha Appa Rau. I. L. R. 9 Mad. 329.
( 14) A suit to recover from a person to whom compensation has
been paid under the Land Acquisition Act ( I of 1894) the whole or
any part of the compensation ;
(15) A suit for the specific performance or recission of a contract ;
(16) A suit for the rectification or cancellation of an instrument ;
(17) A suit to obtain an injunction ;
(18) A suit relating to a trust, including a suit to make good out of
the general estate of a deceased trustee the loss occasioned by a breach
of trust, and a suit by a co-trustee to enforce against the estate of a
deceased trustee a claim for contribution .
Notes.
A suit by a Muhammadan to obtain a share in property distributable
under the terms of a certain endowment is a suit of the nature contemplated
by Clause 18 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of
1887) and therefore not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Mihr Ali Shah
v. Muhammad Husen. I. L. R. 14 All. 413.
A Hindu executed in favor of his daughter an instrument in the following
terms
66 :-" I have hereby given to you to be enjoyed as stridhanam after my
death, 2320 fanams out of 6000 fanams which remain as kanam on the land.
" The proportionate rent on 2320 fanams is 365 paras. This quantity of paddy
" ......shall be enjoyed by you and your sons and grandsons hereditarily by
" receiving the same from my sons." After certain clauses restricting the
"mode of enjoyment and the power of alienation the instrument proceeded, “ in
" the event of the said kanam being paid, that money shall be received by my
66 sons and shall be invested on some other property, which may be approved
" of by you and your sons and by my sons,22 and from that property you may
"receive income yearly and enjoy the same .' In a suit by a grandson of the
donee to recover his share of the income .
Held, (1) that the suit " related to a trust " within the meaning of Provin
cial Small Cause Courts Act, Schedule II, Article 18 ;
(2) that the instrument was not invalid under Hindu Law and that the
plaintiff was entitled to a decree. Krishna Ayyan v. Vythianatha Ayyan.
I. L. R. 18 Mad. 252.
Suit for release of jewels alleged to have been deposited for safe custoy
is not such. See unpublished Punjab Ruling No. 686 of 1888.
6
(19) A suit for a declaratory decree, not being a suit instituted Section 8.
under Section 283 or Section 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of
Schedule 8. C.
1882) . C. Act.
(20 ) A suit instituted under Section 283 or Section 332 of the Code
of Civil Procedure .
Notes.
Plaintiff, a decree-holder, against whom an order for release of certain

property from attachment had been passed under Section 280 of the Civil Pro
cedure Code, on the objection of a person not a party to the suit, sued to
establish his right to such property (Section 283 ) , and in the alternative for the
value of the property.
Held, that the suit being instituted after 1st July 1887, was not cognizable
by a Small Cause Court, as it fell under Article 20 of Schedule II of the Small
Cause Court Act of 1887 .
Held, further, that the suit clearly lay, as the property released was
released on the objection of a person who was not a party to the suit , and no
appeal against the order of release lay as against him under Section 244,
Civil Procedure Code. Deri Ditta v. Miran Bakhsh. (No. 63 P. R. 1889, Civil) .
A suit by the owner of attached property, whose objection to the attachment
has been disallowed to recover the property or its value from the decree-holder
and the auction -purchaser, held to be excluded from the cognizance of a Provin
cial Small Cause Court, by Act IX of 1887 , Schedule II, Clause 20. Dyal v.
Sundar Singh. (No. 51 P. R. 1890) .
(21 ) A suit to set aside an attachment, by a Court or a Revenue
authority, or a sale, mortgage, lease or other transfer by a Court or a
Revenue authority or by a guardian ;
(22) A suit for property which the plaintiff has conveyed while
insane ;
(28) A suit to alter or set aside a decision, decree or order of a
Court or of a person acting in a judicial capacity ;
( 24) A suit to contest an award ;
Notes.
A suit to recover a sum of money as payable to the plaintiff under an

award which was contested was filed in a Subordinate Court on the Small
Cause Side. The Subordinate Judge returned the plaint, being of opinion that
the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes . The plaint was then
presented in the Court of the District Munsif as an ordinary suit, but the Dis
trict Munsif returned it on the ground that the suit was cognizable by a Court of
Small Causes. Held, on reference by the District Judge to the High Court,
that the suit was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and accordingly that
the order made by the Subordinate Judge returning the plaint was wrong.
Simson v. McMaster. I. L. R. 13 Madras 344.
(25 ) A suit upon a foreign judgment as defined in the Code of
Civil Procedure or upon a judgment obtained in British India ;
(26 ) A suit to compel a refund of assets improperly distributed
under Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure ;
(27) A suit under the Indian Succession Act (X of 1865) , Section 320
321 , or under the Probate and Administration Act (V of 1881 )
Section 139 or Section 140, to compel a refund by a person to whom an
executor or administrator has paid a legacy or distributed assets ;
7
PUNJAB COURrts . [ACT XVIII
Section 3.
(28) A suit for a legacy or the whole or a share of residue
a testator, or for the whole or share of the property of an
Schedule S. C. intestate ; by
bequeathed
C. Act.
Notes.
A suit to recover a legacy brought in the Small Cause Court, in which there
is no allegation that the executors were in possession of sufficient assets to pay the
legacy, or that they had ever assented to the payment of the legacy, is one for
the administration of an estate and for an account : such a suit the Small
Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try. Okhoy Coomar Bannerjee v. Koylash
Chunder Ghosal. I. L. R. 17 Calcutta 387.
(29) A suit
(a ) for dissolution of partnership or for the winding up of the
business of a partnership after its dissolution ;
(b) for an account of a partnership transaction ;
Notes.
A suit to recover D's share of a partnership item which through over
sight was not brought into account, does not come within Article 29, Clauses (b)
and (c) -No. 754 of 1888.--per Rivaz J.
or
(c) for a balance of partnership account, unless the balance has

been struck by the parties or their agents ; ·
Notes.
A suit for the profits arising out of the partnership's business alleged to
exist between the parties for the cultivation of land, is excluded from the
cognizance of the Small Cause Court by Article 29 (c) , Schedule II, Act IX
of 1887, the transaction not being less a partnership, because it was one of an
agricultural nature. Bhup Singh v. Fatta. (No. 92 P. R. 1889, Civil).
The words " unless the balance has been struck by the parties " or their
agents;" in Article 29 ( c) of the Schedule II to Act IX of 1887, indicate a
balance showing finally what is due by one party to the other ; that is
to say, a final adjustment of the whole partnership account, no portion thereof
remaining for future adjustment, and the result being stated in the form of a
balance struck, Sri Ram and others v. Bansi Dhar and others. ( No. 64 P. R.
1895 , Civil) .
(30) A suit for an account of property and for its due administra
tion under decree ;
(31 ) Any other suit for an account, including a suit by a mortgagor
after the mortgage has been satisfied, to recover surplus collections receiv
ed by the mortgagee, and a suit for the profits of immoveable property
belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the
defendant.
Notes.
See some valuable notes on this Article in the Madras Law Journal, Vol. I,
page 451 and Vol. II, page 15.
Plaintiff sued on the allegations that he and defendants Nos. 4--8 were
co-sharers in certain land ; that the defendants Nos . 1-3, in Sambat 1949 ,
forcibly cut and carried away certain reeds which grew upon the said land, and
of which the total value was Rs . 741-11-0 ; that plaintiff's share was Rs. 296-10-9,
and that as defendants Nos. 4-8 would not join plaintiff in the claim , they
had been impleaded as defendants. The defendauts Nos. 5-8 admitted the
claim, but defendants Nos. 1-3 contested it. The Munsif having decreed the
claim in part, defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Judge, and, on his
в
1884. ] PUNJAB COURts .
appeal being rejected, applied to the Chief Court on the revision side, on Section 3.
the grounds that the suit was either one, cognizable only by a Revenue Court
under Clause ( ) of Section 77 (3 ) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or an Schedule S. C
unclassed suit over Rs. 100 in value, and, as such, excluded from the cognizance C. Act.
of the Small Cause Court by Article ( 11 ) or Article (31 ) of Act IX of 1837 .
Held, that the suit being for damages for the wrongful removal of
the produce of immoveable property, and not for the enforcement of any right
to, or interest in, immoveable property, was not excluded from the cognizance
of the Small Cause Court by Article ( 11 ) of the Second Schedule of Act IX of
1887.
Held, also, that the suit was not excluded from the cognizance of the Small
Canse Court as being a suit " for profits of immoveable property belonging to
the plaintiff which had been wrongfully received by the defendants " within the
meaning of Article ( 31) of the Second Schedule of Act IX of 1887
The final Clause of Article (31 ) of the Second Schedule of Act IX of 1887
was intended to apply only to " suits for mesne profits of immoveable property
" inthe strict and technical sense of the expression, and the test of the applicability
of the Article is not ""so much whether the defendant has received profits " under
some claim of title, as whether he has received them as a person in wrongful
possession , it being immaterial whether he has any bona fide claim of title to
the land, or not.
I. L. R. 17 Cal. 541, and 707, I. L. R. 18 Cal. 316 ; I. L. R. 15 Mad . 298 ;
I. L. R. 17 Bom. 42 cited.
Nazam and others v. Joti Mal. (No. 119 P. R. 1894, Civil).
Plaintiff sued for Rs. 323 as compensation for damage caused by the
defendants to plaintiff by wrongfully ousting him from land which he alleged
he was entitled under a lease to cultivate for one year, the measure of damages
being the profits which he could have made by such cultivation . The title of
plaintiff as lessee was put in issue.
Held, that the suit was one cognizable by a Small Cansé Court. Dul
Singh and others v. Bhupȧ and others. (No. 80 P. R. 1896 , Civil) .
A suit to recover with interest from the date of suit, Rs. 500 the value of
crops alleged to have been illegally carried away by the defendants, while the
plaintiff was in possession, is not a suit for the profits of land within Clause 31
of Schedule Second of Act IX of 1887 ; such a suit is not excepted from the
jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under that Act. Annamabai v. Subram
ayan . I. L. R. 15 Mad. 298.
Act IX of 1887 does not exclude from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause
Court a suit for damages for the forcible cutting and carrying away of grass.
Krishna Prasad Nag and others v. Maz-ud-din Biswas. I. L. R. 17 Cal. 707. see
page 708.
A suit for the mesne profits of land for a period during which the plaintiff
had been dispossessed by the defendant comes within Article 31 of Schedule II
of Act IX of 1887 , and therefore is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.
Sriram Samanta v. Kalidas Dey. I. L. R. 18 Cal. 31. This was overruled by a
Full Bench, see I. L. R. 23 Cal . 884.
In a suit for the recovery of a certain share in the profits of inam villages,
of which the defendant was the manager, the only relief claimed by the
plaintiff being payment of money, namely Rs . 130 .
Held, that the suit was for money had and received for plaintiff's use, and
was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. It did not fall under Clause (4) ,
Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act ( IX of 1887) as it was
not a suit for the possession of immoveable property, or for recovery of an
interest in such a property. If the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant
०१
PUNJAB COURts . [ACT XVIII
Section 3. had " wrongfully received, " the plaintiff's share of profits, then the suit would
have fallen under clause (31 ) Schedule II of the Act. Damodar Gopal Dikshit
Schedule S. C. v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve, I. L. R. 17 Bom. 42.
C. Act .
Plaintiff sued in Court of Small Causes for Melvaram of lands cultivated
by defendants 1 and 2, and alleged to have been wrongfully taken away by the
other defendants .
Held, that the suit was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court, as it falls
under Clause (31 ) of Schedule II of Act IX of 1887. Mithukaruppa Chetty v.
Sakkara Theoan. Madras Law Journal Reports , Volume V, page 232.
A was in possession as mortgagee of B. Suit that B. took the produce of
certain harvests. Held, suit came within Article (31). Dewa Singh v. Jewan
Khan. Unpublished Ruling No. 1273 of 1889, per Koe, Judge.
(32, A suit for a general average loss or for salvage ;
(33 ) A suit for compensation in respect of collisions between ships ;
(34) A suit on a policy of insurance or for the recovery of any
premium paid under any such policy ;
(35) A suit for compensation-
( a ) for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by
actionable wrong ;
( ) for wrongful arrest, restraint or confinement ;

(c) for malicious prosecution .
Notes.
Costs incurred in defending a criminal prosecution are recoverable only by a

""
suis for damages for malicious prosecution . Such a suit is for " compensation
within the meaning of Clause 35 of Schedule H of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act (IX of 1887 ) , and is excluded from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause
Court. Mahomed Ali v. Bayama, I. L. R. 14 Bom , 100 .
A suit for damages for malicious prosecution is not cognizable by a Small
Cause Court, under Act IX of 1887, whether the claim be for money as a salve
to injured feelings, or as payment for actual loss in trade, or other loss caused to
the plaintiff. Wazira v, Ganga Ram. (No. 30 P. R. 1889, Civil).
(d) for libel ;

(e) for slander ;
(f) for adultery or seduction ;
(g) for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage ;
Notes.
Plaintiff claimed Rs . 150 from the defendant on the ground that the latter
had taken that sum from the plaintiff, promising to give him his daughter in
marriage, but had failed to do so . Held, that the claim fell within Clause 35
(g) of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, as being a suit for compensation
for breach of a promise of marriage-the expression " Compensation " as used
in the above clause bearing the same sense as in Section 73, Contract Act.
Nura v. Ala Ditta. (No. 132 P. R. 1887, Civil ) .
A suit for actual pecuniary damages for breach of contract of marriage

comes within Clause (g) of Article 35, Schedule II of Act IX of 1887 , and as such
is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Kali Sunder Dass
v. Koylash Chunder Dass, I, L. R. 15 Cal. 833.
10
( ) for inducing a person to break a contract made with the Section 3.

plaintiff ;
Schedule S. C.
(i) for obstruction of an easement or diversion of a water C. Act.
course ;
Notes.
Plaintiff sued for the recovery of Rs. 300, damages for certain acts of
trespass committed by defendant to his immoveable property, which according
to the plaint, consisted in breaking down, or causing to be broken down, some
boundary pillars and " diverting a water course. " The suit was instituted in
the District Court, and decided by a Munsif in plaintiff's favor. Defendant
appealed to the Divisional Judge, who held, on plaintiff's objection, that the
case was a Small Cause, and returned the appeal for presentation in the Dis
trict Court, which set aside the proceedings of the Munsif for want of jurisdic
tion and directed the plaint to be returned to plaintiff.
The alleged water course consisted, apparently, of a drain, and defendant's
act, which was complained of, amounted to an encroachment on the bank of the
channel at a place where it ran between the parties ' estates, or was an attempt
to push it further towards plaintiff's property. It was not contended that
there was any attempt to deprive plaintiff of the use of the water of the channel
or to dispute his right to it.
Held, that, inasmuch as plaintiff's claim did not relate to any injury to
the right in water, but was for an encroachment on the land over which
the water course runs, the claim was one cognizable by the Small Cause Court ,
and did not fall under Article 35 ( i) of the Small Cause Court Act of 1887.
S. A. Collins v. J. A. Ten Brocke (No. 71 P. R. 1896, Civil) .
If by obstruction the flow of water is diverted from plaintiff's lands ,
such obstruction amounts to diversion within the meaning of Clause 35 (i) of
Schedule II, of Act IX of 1887. Periakaruppan v. Palaniyand. I. L. R. 18
Madras 28.
A suit to recover damages for injury to a wall caused by the diversion of
a water-course is cognizable by a Provincial Small Cause Court. Such a suit
does not fall within the exception of Article 35 ( ) of Schedule II to Act IX of
1887. In re-Hausainbhai v. Abdullabhai. 1. L. R. 20 Bombay 283.
(j) for illegal, improper or excessive distress or attachment ;

Notes.
A suit to recover money paid to redeem crops which had been distrained
by the defendant for rents due from persons other than the plaintiffs, and also
for damages sustained on account of the distraint, is, so far as the claim relates
to damages , a suit coming under Clause (j) Article 35 of the Provincial Small
Cause Court Act ( IX of 1887 ), and is therefore not entirely a suit of the nature
of a Small Cause.
A Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought by an
execution-purchaser of immoveable property for recovery of his purchase-money
on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest therein, and
the purchaser had for that reason been deprived of it. Neither Article 2, nor
Article 35, Clause (j) Schedule II, Act IX of 1887, excludes such a suit from
the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts. Prasanna Kumar Khan v. Uma
Charan Hozra. Calcutta Weekly Notes, Vol . I, page 140 .
(k) for improper arrest under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of
Civil Procedure, or in respect of the issue of an injunc
tion wrongfully obtained under Chapter XXXV of that
Code) or
11
Section 3.
(1) for injury to the person iu ary case not specified in the
foregoing sub- clauses of this clause ;
Schedule S. C.
C. Act. (36) a suit by a Muhammadan for exigible (muajjil ) or deferred
(muwajjil) dower ;
(37) a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, for the recovery
of a wife, for the custody of a minor, or for a divorce ;
(38) a suit relating to maintenance .

Notes.
Under Act XVIII of 1884, a District Judge was not competent to hear an
appeal in a suit for arrears of maintenance, such suit not being cognizable by
a Small Cause Court (Clause 38, Schedule II , Act IX of 1887) Act XIII of 1888
has, however, made a change in the law inasmuch as a suit for maintenance is
according to it an unclassed suit and the appeal will, subject to the other
provisions of the Act as to value, lie to the District Judge. Dhirta v. Nihal
Devi. (No. 123 P. R. 1889, Civil).
A suit for arrears of fixed maintenance is a suit relating to maintenance
within the meaning of that term as used in this Clause and is therefore not
cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Amutomoye Dasia v. Bhogiruth Chundra
alias Jagessur Shadhoo . I. L. R. 15 Calcutta 164. I. L. R. 16 Bom. 267 , I. L. R.
20 Madras 29.
A suit for maintenance based on a family arrangement is within the

jurisdiction of a Mofussil Small Cause Court. Komu v. Krishna. I. L. R. 11
Madras 134.
A suit for the recovery of arrears of maintenance based upon an agreement
under which the defendant had agreed to pay at a certain rate, does not fall
under Article 38, Schedule II, Act IX of 1887 ; such a suit is cognizable by the
Small Cause Court. Mohidin Vava Ravutha v. Moosau Naina Ravuthan.
Madras L. J. Reports, Vol. VI, pages 137 and 138.
(39) a suit for arrears of land revenue village expenses or other
sums payable to the representative of a village community or to his heir
or other successor in title ;
Notes.
The chaudhries of a village sued the Zamindars for Rs. 40 on the

allegation that they were, by custom, entitled to levy a fee of one per cent. on
all articles sold in the village, and that the defendants had forcibly and wrong
fully realized these dues.
Held, that the suit was cognizable by a Small Cause Court. Hayat
Shah v. Jawaya. ( No. 204 P. R. 1889 , Civil).
(40) a suit for profits payable by the representative of a village
community or by his heir or other successor in title after payment of land
revenue, village expenses and other sums ;
(41 ) a suit for contribution by a sharer in joint property in respect of
a payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer, or by a manager
of a joint property, or a member of an undivided family, in respect of a
payment made by him on account of the property or family ;
Notes.
Lands of which part belonged to the plaintiffs and to the defendant were
comprised in a patta which ran in the names of the plaintiffs and another.
1
The defendant's share of the assessment fell into arrear and was collected from Section 3.
the plaintiffs, who now sued to recover Rs . 200 being the amount so paid
together with interest. Held, the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court Schedule S.
of Small Causes, and therefore no second appeal lay. I. L. R. 15 Cal . 652, C. Act.
followed. Srinivasa v. Sivakohmdu. I. L. R. 12 Madras 349 .
N. C. granted a lease of three plots of land to B. S. The heirs of the
former lessee brought a suit against N. C. and B.S. to recover possession of the
same three plots of land. The suit was decreed with costs ; and the costs,
amounting to Rs. 80 and annas 5, were recovered from B.S. alone. There
upon B.S. brought this suit against N. C. in the Court of Small Causes at
Pubna for the recovery of that amount ; Held that the suit was one which
did not come under Articles 2, 41 , 42 or 44 of Schedule II, Act IX of 1887 , and
was cognizable by the Small Cause Court. Bison Nath Shah v. Naba Kamar
Chowdhary. I. L. R. 15 Cal. 713.
The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant Rs . 227, being his share of
the cost of repairing a channel, which was the property of the plaintiff and
defendant. Held, the suit was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes .
Fischer v. Turner. I. L. R. 15 Mad . 155.
This Clause excludes a suit for contribution from the jurisdiction of the
Small Cause Court, and restores the law laid down in B. L. R. Sup. Vol. , 675 ; 7
W. R. , 377 Bhaloo Singh v. Ramoo Mohton. I. L. R. 23 Cal . 189 .
(42 ) A suit by one of several joint mortgagors of immovable pro
perty for contribution in respect of money paid by him for the redemption
of the mortgaged property.
See I. L. R. 15 Calcutta 713 Supra.
(43) A suit against the Government to recover money paid under
protest in satisfaction of a claim made by a revenue-authority on account
of an arrear of land- revenue or of a demand recoverable as an arrear of
land-revenue ;
(44) A suit the cognizance whereof by a Court of Small Causes is

barred by any enactment for the time being in force.
See I. L. R. 15 Calcutta 713 Supra.
Hell, that when a tenant rents land for a fixed term for agricultural pur
poses and pays up to the landlord the rent in advance, and is subsequently
ejected by the landlord before the expiry of the said term, and on the ground of
such ejectment sues for the refund of a portion of the rent so paid, the amount
claimed being under Rs. 500, such suit is cognizable by a Small Cause Court
under Act IX of 1887, the cognizance of such Court not being barred by any
of the Clauses of Section 77, of the Tenancy Act ( XVI of 1887). Mehr Din v.
Karm Ilahi. (No. 172 P. R. 1888, Civil).
(2) " land-suit " means a suit relating to land

as defined in section 4 , clause (1 ) of the Punjab
Tenancy Act, 1887, * or to any right or interest in
such land .
" Land" means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a
town or village, and is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for
purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and includes the sites of build
ings and other structures on such land.
Land-suits-What are :
(i) Suit for land occupied as a fruit garden unless such land be the
courtyard or compound of a house. No. 111 P. R. 1890.
18
PUNJAB COURTS. ACT XVIII
Section 3. (ii) Suit for share in a well sunk for the purpose of irrigating
agricultural land . No 62 P. R. 1891 , followed in No 40. P. R. 1893 .
Land-suit-value. (iii) Suit under Section 77 , Registration Act, to have a certain deed,
whereby land was mortgaged , registered . No. 43 P. R. 1896 .
What not.
(1 ) Suit to establish right to the use of the water of a canal for
irrigating land- no claim being made to any share in the land occupied by
the canal or in the canal as a whole. No. 1 P. R. 1892.
(2 ) Suit for possession of half a share in an orchard , that is, in the
fruit trees. No. 15 P. R. 1892 .
(3 ) Suit for land which had been reserved as the village grave-yard
from the foundation of the village, and a portion of which had been brought
under cultivation by the defendants 2 years previously. No. 20 P. R. 1892 ,
and No. 46 P. R. 1893 .
(4) Suit for damages or unlawful possession of a water mill, No. 41
P. R. 1892 .
(5) Suit for the recovery of land bearing khasra number and charged
with the payment of revenue and situate within the Municipal limits of a
town upon which a building had been erected and was nearly completed a
month before suit . In applying the definition to a suit the time to be
looked at is the time when the suit is instituted . No. 20 P. R. 1894.
(3) " unclassed suit " means a suit which is

neither a small cause nor a land- suit.
" value " used with reference to a suit

(4)
mea ns the amount or value of the subject- matter
of the suit .
Notes.
(i) Mortgage Suits . In No. 1 P. R. 1887 it was held that the subject
matter of a suit comprises the particular matter advanced by the plaintiff for the
determination of the Court for the purpose of obtaining relief, and also the relief
prayed for expressly or by implication . Neither the relief alone apart from such
particular matter, nor such matter alone, apart from the relief sought can be
held to be the subject-matter for the purpose of valuation. Still less can the
subject-matter be held to be the corporal thing to which the suit relates. Accord
ingly, in a suit by a second mortgagee whose mortgage was for Rs. 440 to redeem
the first mortgagee whose mortgage was for Rs. 155, and to get possession of
the mortgaged land , a Full Bench held the value of the suit was the value of
plaintiff's interest as mortgagee. This was followed in No. 1 P. R. of 1891
which was a suit by a mortgagee for possession against the mortgagor and
certain third persons alleged to be trespassers. In this case it was ruled that the
mere fact that the mortgagee joins certain persons as defendants, not upon the
basis of the mortgage, but upon the allegation that they are in possession as
trespassers, does not affect or modify the rule of valuation as above laid down .
These rulings have been superseded by the Full Bench ruling No. 56 P. R. 1892 .
The Full Bench held that a suit by a mortgagee seeking to recover possession of
land under his mortgage falls within the rules framed under the Suits Valuation
Act which provide that in suits for possession of land under Clause 5 , Section 7,
Court-Fees Act, the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is thirty times
the land-revenue. See also No. 20 P. R. 1893 and No. 1 P. R., 1896. In suits
14
for redemption also the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose Section 3.
of jurisdiction was held by a Full Bench to be the amount of the charge on the
property and not the value of the property. No. 44 P. R. 1888, No. 169 Valu
P. R. 1888, No. 91 P. R. 1889, 63 P. R. 1891 and 106 P. R. 1895 F. B.
(ii) Suits for partition . In No. 8 P. R. 1887 following I. L. R. 8 Mad.

235, it was ruled that in a suit for partition the jursidiction of the Court
must be determined by the value of the entire property to be divided and not by
the value of the plaintiff's share. This has however been overruled by a Full
Bench Ruling ( No. 110 P. R. 1888 ) following I. L. R. 8 B. 31. See I. L. R. 19
Mad. 57.
(iii) Set-off : the value of the subject-matter of a suit in which the defendart
claims a set-off is for the purposes of jurisdiction the value of the suit as institut
ed by the plaintiff and not such value plus the set-off. Where both the suit
and the set- off are within the powers of the Court hearing the case it can
adjudicate upon both cases . No. 69 P. R. 1889.
(iv) Suit to establish right to attach in execution .
The value of a suit by a decree-holder to establish the right of his judgment

debtor to property released from attachment is the value of that right to the
plaintiff. Where the value of the property exceeds the amount of the decree,
the value to the plaintiff is limited to the amount of the decree, and when the
amount of the decree exceeds the value of the property the value to the plaintiff
is the value of the property. No. 50 and 121 P. R. 1890. Cf I. L. R. 17 ˜A. 69.
(v) Value of a suit for accounts ; see 86 P. R. 1892 , I. L. R. 19 B. 198, 20

B. 265, 8 B. 31 , 17 C. 680 , 18 B. 40, 22 C. 690.
(vi) Suit for recovery of certain land after removal of buildings illegally
built thereupon. Held, that the value of the suit is the value of land only
excluding the value of the buildings sought to be removed - Madras Law Jour
nal, Vol. VII, p . 49.
The Suits Valuation Act and the rules framed thereunder are
inserted here for facility or reference .
ACT VII OF 1887.
(Passed on the 11th February 1887.)
An Act to prescribe the mode of valuing certain suits for the

purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts with respect
thereto .
Whereas it is expedient to prescribe the mode of valuing

certain suits for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of
----
Courts with respect thereto ; it is hereby enacted as follows :
―――
1. Title. This Act may be called the Suits Valuation Act
1887 .
PART I - SUITS RELATING TO LAND.
2. This part shall extend to such local areas, and come into
force therein on such dates, as the Governor- General in Council
by notification in the Gazette of India directs.
15
PUNJAB COURTS, [ACT XVIII
Section 3.
3. (1 ) The Local Government may, with the previous
Suits Valua. sanction of the Governor- General in Council, make rules for
tion Act. determining the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction in the
suits mentioned in the Court- Fees Act VII of 1870, section 7 ,
paragraphs v and vi, and paragraph x, clause (d)
( 2 ) The rules may determine the value of any class of land

or of any interest in land , in the whole or any part of a local area,
and may prescribe different values for different places within the
same local area.
Notes.
The provisions of the Court Fees Act referred to are as follows :
Computation of fees pay 7. The amount of fee payable under this Act in
able in certain suits. the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed
as follows :
V. In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens -according to
for possession of land, the value of the subject -matter ; and such value shall
houses and gardens. be deemed to be
where the subject-matter is land, and
(a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate
paying annual revenue to Government ,
or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register
as separately assessed with such revenue,
and such revenue is permanently settled
ten times the revenue so payable :
(b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate,
paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is
recorded as aforesaid ;
and such revenue is settled, but not permanently-
five times the revenue so payable :
(c) Where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted
from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such
revenue ,
and nett profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the
date of presenting the plaint-
fifteen times such nett profits :
but where no nett profits have arisen therefrom -the amount at which the
Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the
neighbourhood :
(d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government,
but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above
mentioned-the market-value of the land :
Provided that in the territories subject to the Governor of Bombay in
Proviso as to Bombay Council, the value of the land shall be deemed to be-
Presidency .
(1) where the land is held on settlement for a period not exceeding
thirty years and pays the full assessment to Government -a sum equal to five
times the survey-assessment ;
16
1884.] PUNJAB COURTS .
(2) where the land is held on a permanent settlement, or on a settlement Section 3.

for any period exceeding thirty years, and pays the full assessment to Govern
ment-a sum equal to ten times fhe survey - assessment ; and Suits Valua.
tion Act.
(3) ` where the whole or any part of the annual survey-assessment is
remitted-a sum computed under paragraph ( 1) or paragraph (2) of this proviso,
as the case may be, in addition to ten times the assessment, or the portion of
assessment, so remitted :
Explanation. The word ' estate,' as used in this paragraph, means any
land subject to the payment of revenue, for which the proprietor or a farmer or
ryot shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which, in the
absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue.
(e) where the subject-matter is a house or garden- according to the

For houses and gardens. market-value of the house or garden :
vi. In suits to enforce a right of pre-emption-according to the value
to enforce a right of (computed in accordance with paragraph v of this sec
pre-emption tion) of the land, house or garden in respect of which
the right is claimed .
for specific performance. X. In suits for specific performance—
(d) of an award- according to the amount or value of the property in

dispute :
Rules.
1. In suits for the possession of land the value of the land for pur
Suits for possession poses of jurisdiction shall be held to be as
of land. follows :
(a) Where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an

estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an
estate, and the annual revenue payable for such part is recorded in the
Collector's register, and such revenue is permanently settled - sixty times.
the revenue assessed on the land .
(b) Where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an

estate paying annual revenue to Government , or forms part of such estate,
and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled, but not
permanently-thirty times the revenue so payable.
Explanation to clause (b)-Where the land is a fractional share
or a portion of part of an estate, and the land revenue pay
able for such part is recorded in the Collector's register,
and such revenue is not permanently settled, the value for
purposes of jurisdiction shall be held to be thirty times
such portion of the revenue recorded in respect of that
part as may be rateably payable in respect of the share or
portion.
Illustrations.- (1) In a suit for possession of a one-third share of an
entire holding of 10 ghumaos forming part of an
estate and recorded as paying Rs. 20 annual reve
nue, the value of the land for the purposes of juris
diction is one-third of thirty times Rs . 20 or Rs . 200.
(2) In a suit for possession of 1 ghumao out of the
same holding, the value of the land is one-tenth of
thirty times Rs. 20 or 60.
17
Section 3. (c) Where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially
exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed
Suits Valua
tion Act. payment in lieu of such revenne, and net profits have arisen
from the land during the year next before the date of present
ing the plaint-fifteen times such net profits. But where no
such net profits have arisen therefrom-the market value .
(d) Where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to
Government, but is not a definite share of such estate, and does.
not come under clauses (a ), (b) or (c) of this rule-the market
value of the land .
(c) Where the subject-matter is a garden-the market value of

the garden .
II. In suits to enforce a right of pre -emption in land , the value of the
Pre-emption snits . land for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be calcu

lated by the preceding rules .
III. When the land or interest in suit falls partly under one and
When value to be sepa. partly under another of the classes enumerated in
tely calculated rule 1 , the value of the land in each class shall be
separately calculated .
IV. In the application of the above rules the word 'land' includes all
Meeting of land ' and such rights (e. g. , shares in village common and in
' revenue. " wells) as are accessory to the land in suit, and the
word ' revenue' , as used in the preceding rules,
when applied to land irrigated from canals, shall be held to include owner's
rate for the year next before the date of presentation of plaint, or half the
occupier's rate for the same period in cases in which no owner's rate is
chargeable .
V. In suits for specific performance of an award so far as the award
Specific performance. relates to land-the market value of the land.
VI. Suits relating to a life-interest in land and suits relating to an

occupancy right shall, for purposes of jurisdiction ,
Suits for life-interest in
land. be deemed to be of half the value provided for suits
for possession under rule I.- (Punjab Government
Noiification No. 255, dated the 4th March 1889.
4. Where a suit mentioned in the Court-fees Act VII, of

1870, section 7 , paragraph iv, or Schedule II, Article 17 , relates to
land or an interest in land of which the value has been determined
by rules under the last foregoing section, the amount at
which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is
valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as deter
mined by those rules .
Notes.
The provisions of the Court- Fees Act referred to herein are as follows : ---
iv. In suits
(a) for moveable property where the subject-matter has no market- value
for moveable property of as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to
no market.value ; title,
18
to enforce a right to share Section 3.

(b) to enforce the right to share in any property
in joint family property ; on the ground that it is joint family property,
Suits Valua
Reference under section 5-4 M. L. J. R., 110 . tion Act.
for a declaratory decree (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or orders ,
and consequential relief ; where consequential relief is prayed.
for an injunction ; (d) to obtain an injunction ,
(e) for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise
for easements; out of land and
(f) for accounts-

according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint
or memorandum of appeal.
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the
relief sought .
17. Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits :--
i. to alter or set aside a summary decision or order of any of the Civil
Courts not established by Letters Patent or of any Revenue Court :
ii. to alter or cancel any entry in a register of the names of proprietors
of revenue-paying estates :
iii. to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed :
iv. to set aside an award :
V. to set aside an adoption :
vi. every other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money-value
the subject-matter in dispute, and which is not otherwise provided for by this
Act.
A suit for a declaration of right and for an injunction falls under Section 7
(iv) Sub-Clauses (c) and (d ). The valuation of the relief sought in such a suit
rests with the plaintiff and not with the Court. I. L. R. 17 B. 56.
5. (1 ) The Local Government shall , before making rules
under section 3, consult the High Court with respect thereto .
(2) . A rule under that section shall not take effect till the expira
tion of one month after the rule has been published in the Local
Official Gazette .
6.
PART II.- OTHER SUITS .
7. This part extends to the whole of British India, and shall

come into force on the first day of July 1887 .
8. Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court
fees Act VII of 1870, section 7, paragraphs V, VI and IX, and
paragraph x, clause (d), Court-fees are payable ad valorem under
the Court-fees Act 1870 , the value as determinable for the com
putation of court -fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction .
shall be the same.
Notes.
S. 7 para. ix is as follows :
ix. In suits against a mortgagee for the recovery
to redeem ;
of the property mortgaged,
to foreclose ; and in suits by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage
19
n 3. or, where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale
declared absolute
Suits Valua according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument
tion Act. of mortgage :
The provisions of this section apply to Appellate Courts as well as to Courts

of first instance, and the value of the subject-matter of suits for the purpose of
jurisdiction must be determined by its provisions.
In a suit of the description mentioned in section 8, the plaintiff valued his
claim at Rs . 694 for the computation of court-fees, and at Rs . 14,000 for the pur
poses of jurisdiction, and contended that the appeal lay to the High Court.
Held that this contention was untenable. -Indian Law Reports 18 B. 207 followed
in 50 P. R. 1896.
See notes Supra under head suit for accounts.
9. When the subject-matter of suits of any class other than
suits mentioned in the Court-fees Act VII of 1870 , section 7,
paragraphs v and vi, and paragraph x, clause ( d ) , is such that
in the opinion of the High Court it does not admit of being
satisfactorily valued, the High Court may, with the previous
sanction of the Local Government, direct that suits of that class
shall, for the purposes of the Court-fees Act 1870 , and of this
Act and any other enactment for the time being in force , be
treated as if their subject-matter were of such value as the High
Court thinks fit to specify in this behalf.
RULES.
I. (i) Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for a decree
against the other party to the alleged marriage,
Suits for restitution of
either alone, or with other defendants, for restitu
conjugal rights .
tion of conjugal rights, or for a decree for the re
covery of a wife ;
(ii) similar suits for a decree establishing, or annulling or dissolving

Marriage. a marriage .
(iii) suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for a decree es
tablishing a right to the custody or guardianship of
Guardianship, & c., of a minor, including guardianship for the purposes of
inor.
marriage ;
(iv) suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for a decree es
tablishing or annulling an adoption including under
Adoption.
the expression " adoption" the customary appoint
ment of an heir :
Value.- (a) . For the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1870 - suits of
class (i), Rs . 100 ; suits of classes (ii), (iii) and
(iv) , Rs . 200 .
Note.
(i) The Court-fees Act, Schedule II, Article 15 , fixes Rs. 5 as the fee in
suits to obtain possession of a wife. Presumably the Act will be followed in
preference.
(iii) Such a suit is not now maintainable. See 10 P. R, 97 F. B.
20
(b) . For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act , 1887, and Section 3.
the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, (as amended by Act
XIII of 1888 )-- Suits Valua
tion Act.
such sum exceeding Rs . 500, and not exceeding Rs . 1,000,
as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.
Explanation.- ( 1 ) . Classes (i) and (ii) do not include petitions under
any special Act relating to the dissolution of marriage.
(2 ) . Class ( iii) does not include proceedings under Act
* Now Act VIII of 1890. IX of 1861 or Act XIII of 1874.*
In a suit for custody of a wife, the plaintiff is enabled to value the suit him
self by stating in the plaint as its value any sum exceeding Rs . 500 and not
exceeding Rs . 1,000 . But neither can the Appellate Court itself put a value on
the suit, nor permit the plaintiff to value it, for the first time when he presents
his appeal. No. 53 P. R. 91.
II. Suit by a plaintiff during the lifetime of a person alleged to
have a restricted power of alienation in respect of
Suits for rendering an
alienation. immovable property in which the plaintiff in the
plaint seeks to have an alienation of immovable pro
perty made by such person declared to be void, except for the life of such
person or for some other determinate period : :
Value. (a ) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act 1870, -a
determined by that Act.
( ) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act 1887 ,
and the Punjab Courts Act 1884 (as amended by
Act XIII of 1888 ) , —
(i ) when the alienation is by a written instrument

which declares the value of the interest purport
ing to be created, or the amount of the considera
tion for which the alienation is made-such value
or amount ;
(ii) in other cases -the market- value at the date of

institution of the suit of the property alienated—
subject in either case to the provisions of Part I
of the Suits Valuation Act 1887, and of the Rules
in force under the said Part so far as those provi
sions are applicable .
Notes.
See No. 145 P. R. 92 .
III. Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for accounts only
not being suits to recover the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff
on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, or suits of
either of the kinds described in section 213 of the Code of Civil Proce
dure :
Value.- (a) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1870 , as de

termined by that Act.
(b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act,
1887, and the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, (as
amended by Act XIII of 1888) , —
such amount exceeding Rs. 100, and not exceed
ing Rs . 500, as the plaintiff may state in the plaint.
21
Section 3. Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint seeks to establish or

IV.
Suits Valua Suits to establish or ne negative any right hereinafter mentioned , with or
ion Act. gative a right. without an injunction and with or without damages,
namely a right of way ; a right to open, or main
tain or close a door or a window or a drain or a water shoot (parnala) ; a
right to or in a watercourse or to the use of water ; a right to build or raise
or alter or demolish a wall or to use an alleged party - wall or joint stair
case :
Value.-(a) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1870, -as de

(b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act.
1887, and the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, as amend
ed by Act XIII of 1888.
(i) if damages are not claimed , such amount exceed
ing Rs . 100, and not exceeding Rs. 500, as the
plaintiff may state in the plaint.
(ii) if damages are claimed, the amount of such
damage increased by Rs . 100.
V. Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint seeks to set aside an award
and applications registered as suits under the pro
Suits to set aside or ñle
visions of section 523 of the Code of Civil Procedure
an award.
to file an agreement to refer to arbitration or of
section 524 of the said Code (to file an award) when or so far as the award
or the agreement relates to property :
Value.- (a ) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1870, -as de
() For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887,
the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, (as amended by
Act XIII of 1888)
the market-value of the property in dispute, subject
to the provisions of Part I of the Suits Valuation
Act, 1887, and of the Rules in force under the said
part so far as those provisions are applicable.
VI. The foregoing rules are subject to the fol
lowing explanation :-
(i) the term " plaint " includes an amended as well as an
original plaint ;
(ii) a suit falling within any of the above descriptions is

not excluded therefrom merely by reason of the
plaint seeking other relief in addition to that des
cribed in any of the foregoing rules .
10 Section 32 of the Punjab Courts Act XVIII of 1884, is

hereby repealed .
PART III .
- SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS .
11. ( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything in section 578 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, Act XIV of 1882 , an objection that by reason
of the over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit or appeal a
22
Section 3.
Court of first instance or lower appellate Court which had not
jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal excerised jurisdic- Suits Valua
tion with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an appellate tion Act.
Court unless
(a) the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before
the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded , or in the lower
appellate Court in the memorandum of appeal to that Court.
(b) the appellate Court is satisfied , for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing, that the suit or appeal was over-valued , or under-valued , and that
the over-valuation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the
disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits .
(2) If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in
clause (a ) of sub- section (I), but the appellate Court is not satis
fied as to both the matters mentioned in clause ( b) of that sub
section and has before it the materials necessary for the determi
nation of the other grounds of appeal to itself, it shall dispose of
the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the
Court of first instance or lower appellate Court .
(3 ) If the objection was taken in that manner and the

appellate Court is satisfied as to both those matters and has not
those materials before it, it shall proceed to deal with the appeal
under the rules applicable to the Court with respect to the hearing
of appeals ; but if it remands the suit or appeal, or frames and refers
issues for trial, or requires additional evidence to be taken , it shall
direct its order to a Court competent to entertain the suit or
appeal .
(4) The provisions of this section with respect to an appel

late Court shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to a
Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 622 of the
Code of Civil Procedure or other enactment for the time being in
force.
(5) This section extends to the whole of British India, and

shall come into force on the first day of July 1887.
Notes.
In a case where the District Munsiff had jurisdiction but the suit was decided
by the Subordinate Judge, section 11 was held applicable. It was argued
that that section was intended to apply only in cases where the over-valuation or
under-valuation is due to a mistake in estimating the value ofthe subject -matter,
and does not apply to cases in which there has been a mistake in principle.
This contention was overruled . I. L. R 14 M. 183, I. L. R. 18 M. 419, 1 C. W.
N. x, xxiii and 136.
In a suit in the court of a Subordinate Judge to redeem certain land on
payment of Rs . 1,625, being quarter of a debt for which it had been mortgaged
together with other land, a decree was passed forredemption of part of the land, but
the court held that the plaintiff had not established his right to the rest. The
plaintiff appealed to the High Court paying ad valorem court fees computed
on the value of the land exonerated only. It was contended that the appeal lay
23
Sections 4-5. to the High Court on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had taken the en
tire mortgage debt which was above Rs . 5,000 to be the value of the suit for the
purpose of jurisdiction . Held that the section only applies to cases in
which the objection taken on appeal refers to the improper valuation of a suit by
a Court of First instance or of appeal for jurisdictional purposes . It does not
apply to a case in which it has to be determined what was the real value of the
subject-matter in the Subordinate Court, I. L. R. 16 M. 326 .
The value of the suit does not mean the amount at which the plaintiff chooses
to value his suit. He cannot assign an arbitrary value to the subject-matter
of the suit. The Court has to find out the proper valuation and on that depends
the jurisdiction . I. L. R. 17 C. 683 .
12 Nothing in Part I or Part II shall be construed to

affect the jurisdiction of any Court
(a) With respect to any suit instituted before rules under Part I
applicable to the valuation of the suit take effect, or Part II has
come into force, as the case may be, or
(b) With respect to any appeal arising out of any such suit.
CHAPTER II.
THE CHIEF COURT.
4. There shall continue to be a Chief Court,

consisting of three or more Judges, who shall be
appointed by the Governor- General in Council,
and shall hold their offices during his pleasure,
and of whom one at least shall always be a barris
ter of not less than five years ' standing.
The Governor- General in Council may in his

discretion , from time to time , appoint one of the
Judges of the Court to be the Chief Judge, and
during any absence of the Chief Judge , appoint
one of the other Judges of the Court to perform
the duties of the Chief Judge until a new Chief
Judge has been appointed and has entered upon
the discharge of the duties of his office, or until
the Chief Judge has returned from such absence,
as the case may be.
5. ( 1 ) The Chief Judge (if any) , whether per

manent or officiating, shall have rank and prece
dence before the other Judges of the Court.
(2) Save as aforesaid , the Judges shall have

rank and precedence according to the seniority
of their appointments as such Judges : except
that a Judge permanently appointed shall be
deemed to be senior to , and shall have rank and
precedence before , an officiating Judge .
24
(3 ) In the construction of this Act the ex- Sections 5—8.

pression ' the Senior Judge ' shall mean the Judge Rules under
for the time being entitled to the first place in Section 8.
rank and precedence .
6. The Chief Court shall be deemed , for the

purposes of all enactments for the time being in
force, to be the highest Civil Court of appeal in the
territories to which this Act extends .
7. The Chief Court shall be the highest Court

of Criminal appeal or revision in the said terri
tories , and shall have power as a Court of original
jurisdiction , to try European British subjects
committed to it for trial .
8. (1 ) Except as by this Act or by any other

enactment for the time being in force otherwise
provided , the Chief Court may make rules to pro
vide, in such manner as it thinks fit, for the excer
cise by one or more of its Judges of any of its
powers .
(i)-RULES AS TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION .
(a).-Original Jurisdiction .
I. The Ordinary original criminal jurisdiction of the Chief Court,

under section 7 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1881, and the extraordinary
original criminal jurisdiction , under section 525 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, shall be exercisable and shall ordinarily be exercised by a
single Judge .
II . The ordinary jurisdiction shall ordinarily be exercised by a

Barrister Judge .
III. Any trial in the exercise of the original criminal jurisdiction

of the Court may be held before two or more Judges, in pursuance of a
written order made by two Judges, of whom one shall be the senior Judge,
and , in case of a trial held in exercise of the ordinary jurisdiction , one
shall be a Barrister Judge.
IV. In trials held under rule III, before a Bench consisting of two
or more Judges , the senior Judge of the Bench shall preside , and shall
deliver the summing up of the Court to the Jury or to the Assessors, unless
it is otherwise arranged among such Judges.
(1) -Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction .
V.-( ) Except as hereinafter provided , the jurisdiction of the Court

as a Court of Criminal appeal, reference or revision, shall be exercisable
and shall ordinarily be exercised by a single Judge.
25
Rules under
Section 8. Exception I
(a ) Appeals and references in the case of persons on whom

sentence of death has been passed .
(2)A Appeals by the Local Government, under section 417 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, from orders of acquittal.
(c) Appeals against sentences passed in trials by the Court of
Session, when not rejected or dismissed by such Judge .
Exception II
A single Judge shall not be competent to enhance any sentence passed

by a District Magistrate acting under section 34 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, or any Court of Session .
(i ) Appeals, falling under Exception I , shall be heard by a Bench
consisting of two Judges.
Note.-Appeals of the kind mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of Exception I
shall be set down for hearing before a Bench of two Judges in the first in
stance .
VI. A single Judge may exercise the powers conferred by section 426
of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
VII. A single Judge may exercise the powers conferred by sec
tions 427 and 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of any
case coming before him, with a view to the exercise of the appellate or
revisional jurisdiction of the Court.
(c) .- General .
VIII. Miscellaneous petitions and applications relating to the exer

cise of the Criminal jurisdiction of the Court shall, except as otherwise
provided in any enactment for the time being in force and in these rules
be heard and may be disposed of by a single Judge. All such petitions
and applications relating to the exercise of the ordinary original jurisdic
tion of the Court, or to proceedings under Chapter XXXIII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, shall be laid before the Senior Judge, in the first
instance, for orders .
IX. A single Judge may, by order, refer for hearing before a Bench
consisting of two Judges, any petition, application or proceeding not being
a trial, coming before him when sitting alone in the exercise of the
criminal jurisdiction of the Court.
X. The power conferred by section 526 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure shall not be exercised, except by a Bench consisting of not less
than two Judges .
(ii) —RULES AS TO CIVIL JURISDICTION.
Subject to the provisions of any Act for the time being in force
1. The following classes of cases shall ordinarily be heard and dis
posed of by a single Judge of the Court :
(a) suits coming before the Court in the exercise of its extraordinary
original Civil jurisdiction ;
26
1884.1 PUNJAB COURTS.
(b) other proceedings of a civil nature under special Acts of the Gover- Rules unde
nor- General in Council, coming before the Court in the exercise of Section 8.
its original jurisdiction of a Civil nature ;
[e.g., under the Indian Succession Aet, 1865 ; under the Indian
Divorce Act, 1869 ; under the European British Minors Act, 1874 ; ]
NOTE. The European Minors Act has been repealed by the Guardian and
Wards Act 1890.
(c) further appeals in Civil suits in which the amount or value of the
subject-matter does not exceed Rs. 100 ; or the appeal relates to
costs only ;
(d) appeals from orders under the Code of Civil Procedure, including
orders having the force of decrees under Section 244 of the said
Code ;
(e) appeals from decisions of subordinate Courts in cases of a Civil nature
under any special Act of the Governor- General in Council ;
(f) applications under the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the
judgment of a single Judge ;
(g) applications for revision under section 622 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure ;
(h) applications under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts

Act, 1887 ;
(i) references under section 646A and section 646B of the Civil Proce
dure ;
(j) references under section 99 and section 100 of the Punjab Tenancy
Act, 1887 ;
(k) applications under any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure other
than sections 22, 23, 24 or 25 , and, in cases of a Civil nature, under
any special Act of the Governor- General in Council ;
Provided that such Judge may, if he thinks fit, refer any such appeal,
reference or application, and, with the concurrence of the Senior Judge,
any such suit or proceeding, at any time before disposal by him, for
hearing by a Bench consisting of two Judges .
II . The following classes of cases shall ordinarily be laid before and
may be disposed of by a single Judge :
(a) all civil appeals not mentioned in rule I, other than appeals under
section 9 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, as amended ;
(b) applications under sections 22, 23, 24, or 25 , of the Code of Civil
Procedure ;
(c) applications under section 206, relating to the decree of a Bench, and
under section 598 of the Code of Civil Procedure .
Provided that, except with the consent of all parties concerned, such
Judge shall not be competent to vary or reverse the decree, judgment or
T of the Lower Court, or to grant any such application .
order
III. The following classes of cases , shall ordinarily be heard and
disposed of by a Bench consisting of two Judges :
$
(a) appeals under section 9 ( I) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, asamended ;
(b) cases referred under the proviso to rule I ;
(c) cases not disposed of by a single Judge under rule II ;
27
Rules under (d) applications for review of the Judgment of a Bench consisting of two
Section 8. Judges ;
(e) references under section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under
any special Act of the Governor- General in Council.
(III) Rules in Cases other than Civil and Criminal.
Subject to the provisions of any Law for the time being in force
1. Any jurisdiction vested in the Chief Court, for the exercise of -which
provision is not made in the rules of Court as to Criminal and · Civil
jurisdiction, may, subject to the rules next following be exercised by a
single Judge of the Court.
2. The power of withdrawal and transfer conferred on the Chief Court by
section 76 of the Punjab Courts Act 1884. as amended by Act XIII of
1888, shall not be exercised, except by a Bench consisting of not less
than two Judges .
3. Rule I shall not be deemed to affect any jurisdiction for the exercise of
which any special rule may for the time being be in force.
4. A single Judge may refer any matter coming before him under these
rules to a Bench consisting of two Judges for disposal, and such Bench
shall be competent to dispose of the same.
(2) When the Chief Court consists of more than

three Judges , it may make rules declaring what
number of Judges, not being less than three , shall
constitute a full bench of the Court, and may by
these rules prescribe the mode of determining
which Judges shall sit as a full bench, when a full
bench sitting becomes necessary .
RULES .
I. A full Bench shall ordinarily be constituted of three Judges only.
II. When the Court consists of four or more Judges, a Full Bench
may be constituted of more than three Judges, instead of three Judges only.
III. A full Bench of more than three Judges shall be constituted in

pursuance of, and in conformity with, an order in writing made by
(a) a Bench of two Judges making the reference to a Full Bench ;

(b) the Senior Judge for the time being of the Court.
Such order shall state the reasons for enlarging the number of Judges
beyond three, and may be made at any time before, but not after a Bench
of three Judges has met to consider the question referred.
IV. If a majority of a Full Bench of three Judges so determine, by

order in writing, at any time before final decision , the Full Bench for the
decision of any question or case referred to a Full Bench of three Judges
shall be constituted of four or more Judges according to such direction.
28
V. The Judge or the Judges, as a Bench, referring any question or Sections 9—10.
case, shall ordinarily be members of the Full Bench appointed to consider
such question or case .
VI . The Senior Judge, present for the time being, shall ordinarily
be a member of every Fall Bench constituted under the Act .
(3 ) Subject to the provisions of sub-section ( 2 )
the Senior Judge may determine which Judge in
each case shall sit alone, and which Judges of the
Court shall constitute any bench.
9. Except as otherwise provided by any enact
ment for the time being in force, an appeal from
any decree or order made by the Chief Court
(a)-in exercise of its original jurisdiction in

cases withdrawn from other Courts un
der section 25 of the Code of Civil Proce
dure, or
(b) .-in exercise of any other original jurisdic

tion of a Civil nature to which the Chief
Court may, by rule , extend this section-
shall lie in the cases and mannerfollowing (that
is to say ) -
(1 ) if the decree or order is made by a single
Judge the appeal shall lie either to a bench consist
ing of two other Judges, or to a full bench as the
Court may , by general rule or special order , direct;
(2 ) if the decree or order is made by a bench
of Judges not being a full bench and the Judges
differ in opinion , the appeal shall lie to a full bench . *
10. Except as otherwise provided by any
enactment for the time being in force,
(1 ) When there is a difference of opinion among
the Judges composing any bench of the Chief
Court, the decision shall be in accordance with
the opinion of the majority of those Judges ;
(2) if there is no such majority, then
(a)-if the bench is a full bench , or is exercis
ing original civil jurisdiction , the deci
sion shall be in accordance with the opi
nion of the Senior Judge ;
Note : This section has been extended to decrees made by the Chief Court in exercise
of its original jurisdiction-
(a ) in cases under the Indian Succession Act, 1865 , or the Probate and Adminstration
Act, 1881 , in which there is contention as to the grant,
(b ) in cases under Part II of the European Britsh Minors Act, 1874. The appeal from
such decree or order when made by a single Judge, shall ordinarily lie to a Bench
of 2 other Judges and not to a Full Bench. ( Chief Court Notification , dated 15th
November 1887. )
N.B.-The European British Minors Act has been repealed by Act 8 of 1890.
29
PUNJAB COURTS. ACT XVIII
Sections 11-12.
(b)-in other cases , the bench before which
the question has arisen shall refer the
question to a full bench , and shall dispose
of the case in accordance with the de
cision of the full bench .
11. Any single Judge of the Chief Court and

any bench of Judges of that Court, not being a
full bench , may, in any case, refer for the decision
of a full bench, any question of law or custom hav
ing the force of law, or the construction of any
document, or the admissibility of any evidence
arising before the Judge or bench, and shall dis
pose of the case in accordance with the decision of
the full bench on the question ,
12. ( 1 ) The Chief Court may appoint a Regis

trar and Deputy Registrar, and such other minis
terial officers as may be necessary for the adminis
tration ofjustice by the Court, and for the exer
cise and performance of the powers and duties
conferred and imposed on it by this Act.
(2) The appointment ofthe Registrar shall be
subject to the sanction of the Local Government.
(3) The officers appointed under this section
shall exercise such powers and discharge such
duties of a non-judicial or quasi-judicial nature as
the Chief Court may direct.
Directions given under section 12, sub-section (3 ) , of the Punjab

Courts Act, 1884, as amended , with reference to the rules of the Chief
Court regulating the practice of the Courts in applications for revision un
der section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under section 25 of Act
IX of 1887 (the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) .
DIRECTIONS .
1. The Deputy Registrar for the time being is hereby authorised to

deal, in the manner hereinafter prescribed , with all applications for revision
.
under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure and applications for the
exercise ofthe powers conferred by section 25 of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act , 1887 , and applications for revision under the combined
provisions of section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under section
40 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, as amended .
II. When any application of either of the kinds above specified is
presented to the Court, the Deputy Registrar shall, unless he sees cause
to the coutrary on the face of the application and the documents presented
therewith, pass orders thereon as follows under his own hand :
(i) An order requiring the applicant, if he has not already performed
the decree or order of which revision is sought, in so far as the same pur
80
1884.j PUNJAB COURTS .
Rules under
ports to affect him, to perform the same or to give security, to the satisfac Section 12 (3) .
tion of the Deputy Registrar, for performance of the same within a reason
able period to be specified in the order.
(ii) In default of such performance being done, or such security
being given within the period specified , or such extended period , if any,
as the Deputy Registrar may for good cause, appoint, an order that the
application be consigned to the record- room without being laid before
Judge for consideration :
Provided that the Deputy Registrar may refer to a Judge for direc
tions in connection with any order which he proposes to pass, in the
matter of any application, under the powers hereby conferred, and shall
refer to a Judge any petition duly presented by or on behalf of the appli
cant to dispense with performance or security for performance of any
decree or order.
(iii) When security is required under class (i) of this rule, the order
shall direct that it be given in the Court of first instance, and proof shall
be required by the Deputy Registrar that the requisite security has been
given, or the decree or order has been performed, as the case may be,
before the expiration of the period appointed therefor.
RULES REGULATING THR PRACTISE OF THE SUB RDINATE COURTS .
I. When an application under section 622 of the Code of Civil Pro
cedure, for revision , or under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 , has been made in the Chief Court, and it is ordered in
that Court that the applicant shall give security in any Court Subordinate
to the Chief Court for the due performance of the decree or order sought
to be revised, such Court shall, upon receiving intimation from the Chief
Court of such order, accept from the applicant any amount which he may
offer to deposit, or any security which he may tender for the purpose of
satisfying or giving security for the performance of the said decree or
order, and shall retain the same in its custody pending the further order
of the Chief Court.
II. When a deposit has been made or security tendered in the Sub
ordinate Court, such Court shall, on the request of the applicant, or on re
ciept of a precept from the Chief Court, certify in writing addressed to the
Deputy Registrar of the Chief Court what has been done by the applicant,
with its own opinion , if required, as to the sufficiency of the security ten
dered .
III. In all respects not provided for in these rules, or by a special

order of the Chief Conrt, the same practice shall be followed in the Sub
ordinate Court as prevails in such Court when taking security in pursuance
of an order made under section 240 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( requir
ing security upon stay of execution of a decree) or under section 545 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for the taking of security for the performance of
a decree or order under appeal to a Superior Court.)
IV. The preceding rules shall apply, so far as may be, when a person
intending to apply to the Chief Court under section 622 of the Code of
Civil Procedure or section 25 of Act IX of 1887 , has performed , or tender
ed security for the performance of, or deposits the amount of the decree or
order which he desires to have revised, in the Court in which such decree
or order is pending for execution, or by which it would ordinarily bet
executed under section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
31
Sections 13-14.
(4) Any such officer may be suspended or dis
missed from his office by order of the Chief Court :
Provided that neither the Registrar nor the
Deputy Registrar shall be dismissed without the
previous sanction of the Local Government.
唪
13. The general superintendence and control
over all other Civil Courts shall be vested in , and
all such Courts shall be subordinate to , the Chief
Court.
Notes.
Proceedings and orders held and made by District and Divisional Judges
under section 14 ( b ) may be dealt with by the Chief Court, under its gereral
power of superintendence and control over subordinate Civil Courts under this.
section, though no appeal is given by the rules framed under Section 14 (b). No.
42 Punjab Record, 1888.
In a case under the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879) held that the
Chief Court has no power to order the transfer of a proceeding under Section 14
of that Act from one Court to another, such proceeding being neither Civil nor
Criminal, though it partakes rather of the latter character, as being penal. There
is no provision in the Punjab Courts Act covering such proceedings and the
general power of control vested in the Chief Court ís clearly insufficient to enable
that Court to authorize another Court to take cognisance of a charge under s . 14,
L. P. Act. But held further, that the aforesaid general powers of control do
enable the Chief Court in a proceeding in which the enquiry is held for the pur
pose of being submitted to that Court for orders of a penal character, to look at
the charge, and if it appears that the allegations made do not establish a case
justifying suspension or dismissal to direct proceedings to be stayed. No. 41 P.
R. 88 Cr.
The general power of control vested in the Chief Court does not extend to
revising particular orders passed by a Divisional Court, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 36. No. 31. P. R., 1888 Cr.
14. (I) The Chief Court may make rules con
sistent with this Act and any other enactment for
the time being in force.
(a)—providing for the translation of any pa
pers filed in the Chief Court, and copying
or printing any such papers or transla
tions and requiring from the persons at
whose instance or on whose behalf they
are filed payment of the expenses there
by incurred ;
RULES RELATING TO TRANSLATIONS .
1. Such vernacular documents filed in the Chief Court in its Civil
appellate or Civil revisional jurisdiction , as may from time to time be
prescribed by the Court, shall be translated and, subject to rule V , the
expenses of such translation shall be paid by the appellant or applicant.*
& The following vernacular documents are now required to be translated :--
Memorandum of appeal.
5 Application for revision.
Copies of decrees or orders. -
Annexures to such memoranda or application.
82
II. The translation shall be made and certified by such agency as Section 14 (a).
the Court may from time to time appoint, and the maximum total charge
Rules relating
shall not exceed four annas per one hundred words.
to paper- books.
1II. On presentation of an appeal or application to which these rules
apply, the Deputy Registrar shall cause a notice in writing to be delivered
to the persons presenting the same, stating the sum required for expenses
of translation and the period within which such sum is to be deposited .
IV. If such sum is not deposited within the specified period, the
appeal or application shall be laid before a Judge for orders.
V. The Court, in regard to any particular class or classes of cases,
by a rule of Court, and a Judge, in respect of any particular case not
provided for by rule of Court, by an order stating the grounds thereof,
may dispense with the payment prescribed by these rules.
RULES RELATING TO PAPER- BOOKS .
(a) Further Appeals.
I. Paper-books shall be prepared in all further appeals admitted to a

hearing before a Bench of not less than two Judges by an order of a Judge
in Chambers .
The Paper-book shall consist of—
( 1) Copies or translations of the Judgments and decrees of the Lower
Courts ;
(2) the grounds of appeal, or a translation thereof if the appeal was

filed in the vernacular ; and
(3) a copy of the order of the Judge in Chambers admitting the case
to a Bench .
II. In appeals in which the subject- matter in dispute does not exceed
rupees one hundred in amount or value, the paper-book shall be prepared
in manuscript, unless the admitting Judge specially orders it to be printed,
in which case the printing shall be done at the expense of Government .
III. In all other appeals the paper-book shall be printed , unless the
admitting Judge shall otherwise order.
IV. In every appeal in which a paper-book has, under these rules to
be printed the Deputy Registrar shall, by notice, require the appellant to
deposit, within one week from the date of the order admitting the appeal,
the under-mentioned ad valorem fees to cover the cost of the paper-book ;
namely ,
(a) Where the subject- matter in dispute can be valued in money, --one
rupee for every one hundred rupees or part thereof, up to a maximum fee of Rs.
25 ;
(b) Where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter

in dispute,-four rupees or fine rupees. accordingly as it is estimated that the
paper book will not, or will exceed four foolscap pages of printed matter.
V. Ifthe appellant fail to deposit the sum required under the preced
ing rule within the prescribed time, the case will, on the day fixed for hearing,
be laid before the Court, to be dealt with in the manner provided by section
158 of the Code of Civil Procedure , or adjourned at the cost of the party.
making the default, or consigned to record-room, or 32 otherwise disposed
of as the Court may direct.
88:
Section 14 (a). Note. No date for hearing will be fixed until printing fees have been paid
or the time allowed for their deposit has elapsed ; when the time allowed has
Rules relating expired and the fees have not been paid, the case will be consigned tothe record
to paper-books. room by the Deputy Registrar, and the appellant informed accordingly. Should
the appellant thereafter apply on proper stamp, to have the appeal brought out of
the record-room and to deposit the printing fee, the Deputy Registrar may send
for the case from the record-room, and, if the explanation of delay appear to be
satisfactory and do not exceed one month, receive the printing fee and issue
notice . If the delay be more than one month or explanation appear unsatisfactory,
the Deputy Registrar shall take the order of a Judge as to whether further
action is to be taken .
VI. Such number of copies of the paper-book shall be printed as the

Court may, by general rule in that behalf or special order in a particular
case, direct.
Note. The number of copies ordinarily to be printed has for the present
been fixed at thirteen .
VII . Each appellant and respondent appearing separately may, in
cases falling under rule III , obtain two copies of the paper-book free of
charge, and additional copies, if available, may be purchased at rupees two
a copy. In cases in which the paper-book is printed at the cost of Govern
ment, under rule II , any party to the appeal may obtain as many copies of
the paper-book as are available, on payment of rupees two a copy if the
paper-pook does not exceed, and rupees three a copy if the paper-book
does exceed, four foolscap pages of printed matter.
VIII. On the cover of every paper-book, in respect of which a fee
has been levied under rule III, shall be noted the amount levied , and such
amount shall be included in the costs of the case, unless the Bench hearing
the case shall otherwise direct.
(b. ) First Appeals.
I. Whenever an appeal from a decree or order is admitted to a hear

ing, after notice to the respondent, before a Bench consisting of not less
than two Judges of the Chief Court, and the amount or value of the subject
matter of the suit exceeds rupees five thousand, or the appeal is from a
decree of a Divisional Court in an original suit, the Registrar shall apply
to the Court for an order as to whether the usual paper-book shall be pre
pared, or a printed record under these rules .
II. If the Court orders the preparation of a printed record, the
Registrar shall, as soon as may be, give the appellant notice thereof in writ
ing, and require him to deposit, within one month of the receipt of the
notice, such sum on account of the expenses of preparing the printed record
in the manner hereinafter prescribed, as may, under the circumstances of
the case, appear reasonable with regard to the rates prescribed in Schedule
A. hereunto annexed :
Provided that, upon the application of the appellant, if made within

three days from the receipt of such notice and accompanied by the prescrib
ed fee, an estimate of the amount required to defray the expense of
translating, transcribing, indexing and printing the copy of the record of
the suit, shall be prepared , under the orders of the Registrar, within four
teen days of such application, and delivered to the appellant. The amount
so estimated shall be deposited within one month of the delivery of the
estimate.
III. Upon the required deposit being made a detailed list of documents Section 14 (a),
in the form prescribed in rule IV, shall be prepared under the orders of the
Registrar, within fourteen days from the date of the deposit . In cases of Rules relating
doubt the Registrar shall determine what particular portion of the record to paper - books.
constitutes a separate document for the purposes of such list.
IV. The list shall enumerate consecutively all the documents in the
record of the suit, except those in File B, and shall consist of two parts,
with a column for showing, as to each documont, whether it is to be
transcribed and printed or omitted . Part I shall comprise every document of
any of the descriptions mentioned in the Schedule B hereunto annexed , and
every such document shall, unless the Registrar by order in writing other
wise direct, be entered as to be transcribed and printed . Part II shall com
prise all the remaining documents in File A. and every such document shall
be entered as to be omitted .'
V. A copy of the list shall be forwarded to the appellant and to the
respondent, with a notice in writing calling attention to these rules and in
timating that the arguments at the hearing of the appeal will, unless the
Bench direct otherwise , be restricted to the documents comprised in the
printed record .
VI . It shall be competent to either party, within fourteen days of re

ceipt of the copy of such list, to indicate either on the copy supplied or
otherwise in writing ( such copy or writing to be delivered to the Registrar)
(a) any document in Part I of the list which he desires to be omitted
from the printed record : and
(b) any document in Part I of the list omitted by order of the Regis
trar, or in Part II of the list , or in File B, which he desires to
have included in the printed record .
VII. ( i ) If the parties concur as to the additional documents to be in

cluded in the record , the Registrar shall consider whether such additional
documents shall be included in the record or not, and, if he direct their in
clusion, his decision shall be final.
(ii) If the Registrar directs the exclusion of any such document,

either party may request him to take the order of the Court, and the
Registrar shall thereupon proceed to take such order and act accordingly.
(iii) No document in Part II of the list or in File B, shall be
added without the concurrence of the parties and a direction from the
Registrar or an order of the Court, as hereinbefore provided, and no docu
ment in Part I of the list shall be omitted except by direction of the Regis
trar or an order of the Court.
VIII. When any document, other than those described in Schedule

B, is added to the printed record at the request of one party only, it shall be
competent to the Court to direct that such party shall deposit, within a
specified time, the amount required to defray the additional expense to be
incurred in consequence of such addition, and such amount inay, by the
final order on the appeal, be excluded froin the costs of the appeal.
IX . If the deposit required under Rule II or Rule VIII prove in- .

sufficient to cover the cost at the rates prescribed in Schedule A, the Regis
trar may, by a notice in writing, require that such further deposit, as seem
to him necessary, shall be made within a time to be specified in such notice.
35
1884. PUNJAB COURTS .
Section 14 (a). X. All documents to be included in the printed record which are not
originally in the English language, and which have not already been trans
Rules relating lated for the use of the Lower Courts or of the Chief Court, shall be trans
to paper-books. lated, under the orders of the Registrar , and all such translations shall be
revised and authenticated by the Head Translator , or such other person as
the Registrar may appoint.
XI. When the list has been settled and all necessary translations
have been made, the record will be arranged, transcribed , and printed under
the orders of the Registrar.
XII . The printed record shall be arranged in such manner as the

Court may from time to time by general order or by special order direct : *
Provided that when both parties agree as to the manner of arrange
ment , the record may be arranged in such manner by order of the Regis
trar.
XIII. (A complete chronological index of all the papers in File A of

the record whether included in the printed record or not) , and of the docu
ments , if any, on File B, which have been included in the printed record ,
shall be prepared . The index shall contain a columu showing which papers
of File A have been omitted from the printed record .
XIV. If the appellant fails to make, within the time allowed , the
original or supplementary deposit required by Rule II , Rule VIII or Rule
IX, the matter shall be referred for the orders of the Court. When any
such reference is made the Registrar shall issue notice to the appellant,
calling upon him to show cause, on a date to be specified in the notice . why
an order shall not be made, postponing the hearing of the appeal sine die,
or otherwise dealing with it as to the Court may seem proper .
If either party fail to make, within the time allowed , the original or
supplementary deposit ordered or required under rule VIII or rule IX, the
matter shall be similarly referred, and the Court may order that the docu
ment or documents in respect of which the default has been made shall be
omitted from the printed record, or may pass such other order as the Court
may deem proper.
XV. The period fixed by these rules for the doing by a party of any
act towards the preparation of the printed record may, on cause being
shown, be enlarged by an order of Court, either before or after the period
so fixed* has expired .
The period for the preparation of the printed record in its various
stages shall be fixed and may be enlarged from time to time by order of the
Registrar.
Note. The present arrangement ordered by the Court is that the record be arranged in
five parts, and that the parts be as follows :→
Part I.-Plaint, Pleas, Issues, Statements of the parties and their pleaders before and
after Issues, in chronological order as far as possible.
PART II.- Oral evidence of plaintiff. Documentary evidence of plaintiff. Oral evidence
of defendant. Documentary evidenoe of defendant.
PART III.- Commissioner's and Arbitrators ' reports, miscellaneous papers not in Parts I
and II, and intermediate orders.
PART IV.- Judgment and decree of lower Court.
PART V.- Grounds of appeal to Chief Court.
86
XVI. On the completion of the printed record a bill of charges shall Section 14 (a).
be prepared at such rates as the Court may, from time to time, by order in
that behalf, direct, not exceeding the rates specified in Schedule A, here Rules relating
unto annexed. Such bill shall be passed by the Registrar and shall be to paper-books.
placed upon the record of the case . The cost of any additional document
included under Rule VIII shall be shown separately in such bill.
XVII. On the bill shall be noted the total amount deposited by any
party under Rules II , VIII and IX, and the excess deposited, if any, shall
under the orders of the Registrar, be refunded . Should the actual cost of
the printed record, at the rates allowed by these rules exceed the amount
of the deposit, the Registrar will report the matter to the Court forthwith
for order before the hearing of the appeal .
XVIII. A copy of the bill of charges may be supplied to either party

applying for the same.
XIX . Such number of copies of the record shall be printed as the
Court may, by general rule in that behalf or special order in a particular
case, direct.
Note.-The number of copies ordinarily to be printed has, for the present,
been fixed at thirteen.
XX. The appellant and respondent may each obtain two copies of
the printed record free of charge, and one additional copy free of charge
for each Pleader or Advocate employed in excess of two . Additional
copies, if available, may be purchased at three annas per page of printed
matter.
XXI. Parties and counsel shall be entitled to receive copies of the

printed record on application to the Deputy Registrar not less than one
month before the date fixed for hearing.
XXII . On the cover of every printed record in respect of which a fee
has been levied shall be noted the amount levied and the party from whom
levied, and such amount shall be included in the costs of the appeal,
subject to the provisions of Rule VIII , unless the Court shall in any case
otherwise direct .
XXIII. In case of doubt or dispute, the manner of applying these

rules in any particular to several appellants or several respondents or to
cross-appeals or an appeal where a cross-objection is presented , shall be
determined by order of the Court .
XXIV . The Registrar may, in his discretion , and, if so required by
either party by petition duly stamped , shall refer to the Court any matter
not herein expressly required to be referred ; and may also , under orders
of the Court, depute any of the duties which devolve on him under these
rules to the Deputy Registrar or other officer of the Court.
XXV. For all purposes of these rules, when an order of the Court is
required, the order of one judge, subject to reconsideration, shall be
conclusive.
XXVI. (a ) When an order has been made by a Judge or bench
under section 566 or section 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure in an
appeal to which the rules for the preparation of a printed record have been
applied, and additional evidence has been taken in pursuance of such order,
a Judge may at any time after completion of the record of the inquiry
37
Section 14 (a) . make an order that a supplementary printed record be prepared of (1 ) the
order made under section 566 , or section 568 , Civil Procedure Code, and
Rules relating ( 2 ) the procerdings taken thereunder, or any part thereof.
to paper books .
(b) -Such order may be made by a Judge of his own motion or on an
application of either party, but shall not be made without opportunity to
the parties to be affected to be heard against the order.
(e) The order shall direct by which party or parties the expenses of
preparing the supplementary record or of any part thereof shall be borne
in the first instance.
(d) —When a Judge's order for preparation of a supplementary print

ed record has been made, the Registrar shall, as soon as is practicable,
submit a scheme for the preparation of such record and take the order of a
Judge as to the manner in which the rules hereinbefore contain shall be
made applicable to the preparation thercof.
SCHEDULE A.*
The work of translating, transcribing and printing the record shall be charg
ed for at the following rates
Rs . a. P.
1. Estimate of costs ... 16 0 0
2. Preparation of list of papers, per ten entries ,

or part thereof ... ... ... ... 100
3. Tanscribing record, per 1,000 words ... 1 0 0
4. Examining and certifying transcript record, per
1,000 words ... *** ... 060
5. Translation of the record, per 1,000 words of the
original record ... ... ... ... 600
6. Revision of translation, per 1,000 words of the origi
ual record ... ... ... 300
7. Chronological index , per ten entries, or part
thereof ... ... 200
8. Printing, per page of printed matter ... *** 160
9. Examining and correcting printed proofs, per page
of printed matter ... ... ... 040
10. Preparing special index under Rule XII ... special charge.
NOTES (a).-Translation includes the reading of the translated document to
the Examiner.
* Note, The rates specified in this schedule are maximum rates, the actual charges to be
made are such as the Court may from time to time fix by order in that behalf, but are not to
exceed those given in the schedule . Lower rates are at present levied, under order of Court,
dated the 3rd April 1888 , in respect of the following matters .-
Rs. a. p.
1. Estimate of Costs ... 10 0 0
2. Preparation of list of papers, per ten entries, or part
thereof ... ... ... 0 10 0
3. Examining and certifying transcript record, per
1,000 words ... ... *** 040
4
4. Revision of translation, per 1,000 words of the origi
nal record ... ... *** *** 2 0 0
5. Chronological index, per ten entries, or part thereof 100
6. Printing, per page of printed matter ... ** 1 2 0
38
---
(b) . The charges in the above Schedule are subject to variations Section 14 (a) .
from time to time by order of the Court, provided that no rate
hereinbefore fixed shall be enhanced, and no variation shall Rules relating
affect an appeal directed to be dealt with under these rules be- to paper-books.
fore the variation is made.
SCHEDULE B.
1. Plaint and annexures referred to in the plaint and presented therewith.
2. Record of examination of parties, or of their Pleaders or Agents, and of
all admissions made in their behalf, whether made orally or in writing.
3. Written statements including claims to set- off.
4. Issues.
5. Exhibits and documentary evidence.
6. Evidence of witnesses.
Note. When the evidence has been recorded in the vernacular , and there
is also a memorandum thereof in English, recorded under section 184 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the latter only be included in Part 1 , and the former in
Part II of the list.
7. Reports and Examination of Commissioners.
8. Agreements to refer to arbitration, order of reference thereon, awards
and examination of arbitrators and umpires and objections to award.
9. Intermediate orders of Court affecting the merits.
10. Judgment.
11. Decree.
12. Grounds of appeal to the Chief Court.
(b) declaring what persons shall the permitted

to practise as petition -writers in the
Courts of the Punjab , regulating the con
duct of business by persons so practising
and determining the authority by which
breaches of rules under this clause shall
be tried ;
RULES.
A. - Definitions.
1. In these rules :
' Petition ' means a document written for purposes of being presented to a
Court or a Judicial or Revenue Office as such, and includes a plaint and memo
randum of appeal .
To practice as a petition-writer' means to write petitions, as defined above
for hire, and extends to the writing of a single petition for hire ;
A petition-writer is said to practise in a Court , when he writes petitions for
the purpose of being presented to that Court ;
"
Conrt Subordinate to the Chief Court' means all Civil Courts (including
Courts of Small Causes), and all Criminal Courts, other than the Chief Court ;
' Revenue Officer' means and includes all persons having authority as Re
venue Officers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; or the Punjab
Tenancy Act, 1887.
Revenue Office ' means the office of a Revenue Officer.
39
Section 14 (b). 6
Revenue Court ' means and includes all Revenue Officers exercísing the
jurisdiction described in section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 ;
Petition -writers'
rules. Revenue Officers invested with jurisdiction under Chapter XI of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act, 1887, shall be deemed to be Subordinate Civil Courts or Re
venue Courts according as they are under the control of the Chief Court, or of
the Financial Commissioners .
B.-Licensing of Petition-writers.
II. Noperson shall practise as a Petition-writer in the Punjab unless he
has been duly licensed under these rules --
Provided
(1) that any person licensed under any rule hitherto in force shall be
deemed to have been licensed under these rules :
(2) that these rules shall not apply to any Advocate, Pleader or Mukhtar,
in respect of a petition written for presentation to a Court in which
he is qualified to practise, whether such petition be written by him
self or his clerk or on his behalf :
Provided that in the latter case it is signed by the employer ;
Noles.
The following circular has been issued on this subject :
CIRCULAR MEMO. No. 2-538 G. of 1896 .
To
ALL JUDICIAL AND REVENUE OFFICERS IN THE PUNJAB, AND OTHER
PERSONS CONCERNED .
Dated 13th February 1896.
It having been brought to the notice of the Judges that in some districts.
SUBJECT.
petitions written by agents and munshis of legal
Petition-writers' Rules. practitioners are admitted by the Courts, though not
Explanation of Rule II of signed by the legal practitioners who employ such
No. XXI , Rules and Or agents or munshis, the following instructions are issued
ders, Volume I. for guidance .
2. The object of Rule II of the Rules relating to petition -writers is to pre
vent unlicensed persons from practising as petition-writers ; and the exception
contained in the second proviso to the rule only extends to legal practitioners
engaged by litigants to conduct proceedings on their behalf. When a petition
is not written by the legal practitioner himself, but is written by his clerk or by
some person acting on behalf of the legal practitioner, it must be signed by
the latter.
3. The last sentence of the second proviso runs thus " Provided that in the
latter case it be signed by the employer." The words " latter case" refer to peti
tions written by a clerk or other person employed by a legal practitioner, as
distinguished from petitions written by the legal practitioner himself, which he
would ordinarily sign as such .
4. Action under Rule XXXIII should be taken against any clerk to a
legal practitioner or other person who contravenes Rule II .
(3) that no petition shall be rejected merely on the ground that it has
been written by a person who is not a licensed Petition -writer.
III. No person shall be licensed as a l'etition -writer while he is in the
service of Government or of a Legal Practitioner. 1
IV. Petition-writers in the Punjab shall be of two grades, that is to
say :
(a) Petition -writers of the first grade, who may practise petition-writing
in the Chief Court, and all Courts subordinate thereto, and in the
Court, and Office of the Financial Commissioners , and all Revenue
Courts, and officers under the control of the Financial Commissioners ;
40
(b) Petition-writers of the Second Grade, who may practise petition- Section 14 (b).
writing on the original side of the Courts of only District Magis
trates, Collectors and District Judges, and in Criminal, Civil or Petition-writers'
Revenue Courts and offices of equal or inferior jurisdiction. rules.
-
V. Any person, above the age of twenty years, who has passed the
Middle School Examination or any recognised examination equivalent
thereto, may apply to the District Judge of the District in which he resides
or desires to practise, for admission to the special examination hereinafter
provided .
VI. ( i ) The application shall be written by the applicant with his
own han , and presented by him in person, and shall state :--
d
(a ) the applicant's name ; father's name ; date of birth according to

the English calendar ; caste ; residence, and present occupa
tion (if any);
(b) the names of two persons of respectability to whom reference
may be made as to the applicant's character, should the certifi
cates presented with the application be deemed insufficient.
(i ) The application shall be accompanied by certificates of character
and satisfactory evidence that the applicant has passed one of the exami
nations referred to in rule V. If the applicant has been convicted of a
criminal offence, this shall be stated in the application . If the applicant
is in the service of Government or of a Legal Practitioner, his application
shall state that he is prepared to resign such service on being licensed as a
petition-writer.
VII. The District Judge to whom the application is made may, in his
discretion, on being satisfied ; ( a) that the applicant is over twenty years
of age, (b ) that he is of good character, and (c) that he has passed the
perscribed examination , and that he is not disqualified under these rules ,
pass an order admitting him, subject to payment of a fee of Rs . 5 , to the
examination provided for in the rule next following.
VIII. An examination will be held in each District yearly, in the

month of September, in the following subjects, or such subjects as the
Chief Court may, from time to time, notify in the Punjab Gazette :
(1 ) Petition-writing. - Subjects will be given at the time of the

examination for ( 1) a plaint, (2) a criminal complaint, (3) one
or more miscellaneous petitions, and (4) for candidates for the
first grade, a petition of appeal .
(2) Legal Procedure. -The candidates will be examined in Chapter

II, III , IV, V, VIII , XVI , and XVII of the Indian Penal Code ;
in Chapters XIX, Sections A and B, XXVI , XXXI , XXXIII ,
XXXIV , XXXVII , XLVII and Schedule IV (and for candi
dates for the first grade, in Chapters XLI to XLIV inclusive)
of the Code of Civil Procedure, so far as they relate to the
drawing up of plaints and documents for presentation in Court ;
in Chapter VII of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 ; and Chapter
II of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ; and in the Court
Fees Act, General Stamps Act, and the Indian Limitation Act,
so far as a knowledge of these Acts is necessary for the
performance of the duties of Petition- writer.
41
Section 14 (b) . IX. The examination shall be conducted by a Board of such officers
as the District Judge may appoint for the purpose, presided over by an
Petition-writers' officer of not lower standing than an Extra Assistant Commissioner, in such
rules.
manner as the Chief Court may, from time to time, prescribe.
X. The results of the examination shall be reported to the District
Judge, who shall decide what candidates have passed, and submit state
ment of their names to the Divisional Judge to be forwarded to the Chief
Court .
XI. The Chief Court will determine what candidates shall be accept
ed as petition-writers of either grade, and the Divisional Judge or the
District Judge, according as the license to be granted is of the first or
second grade, will be authorised to grant to each accepted candidate a
license in the form A annexed to these rules .
XII. The Chief Court may by order

( 1) Admit to either grade any person who has not qualified as re
quired by these rules.
(2) Promote a Petition-writer of the second grade to the first grade.
XIII. A license granted to a Petition-writer under these rules
authorises him to practise, subject to those rules, according to its tenor,
and continues in force until,
(1 ) in the case of a second grade license, it is superseded by a first

grade license ;
(2) its operation is suspended by an order made under rule XIV, or
the Petition-writer enters the service of Government or of a
Legal Practitioner ;
(3) the Petition-writer is suspended or dismissed by competent
authority.
XIV. (i) Every licensed Petition-writer shall between the first and
thirty-first days of August of each year, produce, or, if he ordinarily prac
tises in an inferior Court, forward through that Court, his license for the
inspection of the Court under which it is held . A note of such production
with the date, will be entered on the license. If a Petition-writer fails to
comply with this rule, his name will be posted in a conspicuous place of the
Court- house of the highest Court in which be ordinarily practises, with an
order that the operation of his license is suspended, and that he will be
liable to penalties if found practising whilst such order of suspension is in
force.
(ii) If the Petition-writer produce his license for inspection at any

time before the thirty-first day of August of the following year, the order
of suspension may be withdrawn , subject to a charge of rupees five .
Provided that the charge shall not be made if it be shown to the satis
faction of the Court that the failure to produce the license within the time
appointed was due to unavoidable causes , aud that the license shall not be
restored without the previous sanction of the Chief Court.
XV. When a licensed Petition-writer is promoted from the second

to the first grade, a first grade license will be granted to him by the
Divisional Judge upon surrender of his second grade license and payment
of rupees five.
42
4
XVI. Any licensed Petition-writer may, with permission, transfer his Section 14 (b) .
place of business from any one to any other locality in the Punjab. Appli
cation for such permission shall be made, according to the grade of the Petition-writers'
rules.
applicant, to the Divisional Judge or District Judge into whose jurisdiction
the applicant desires to remove, and shall be accompanied by a certificate
of good character from the Court whose jurisdiction the applicant desires
to quit. If the application is granted, a note to that effect will be endorsed
on the applicant's license, and he will thenceforth be deemed to hold .
licenso under the Court into whose jurisdiction he has removed .
XVII. If a licensed Petition -writer lose the license granted to him

under these rules he may apply to the Court under which it was held for
a duplicate license . The application shall be made in writing and shall be
presented by the applicant in person. The Court to which it is made, if
satisfied that the former license has been lost, shall, upon payment by the
applicant of rupees five cause a fresh license to be issued in the same form
and bearing the same date as the last license, and shall cause the words
" duplicate license " to be enfaced thereon , with the date of issue, and
shall sign such enfacement. Every matter required to be noted upon the
license by rules XIV, XVI , XXXII ( ii) XXXV (ii ) , or rule XXXIX, shall
be noted on the back of the duplicate license under the signature of the
Court granting it.*
C.-Conduct of Petition-writers.
XVIII. Every Petition-writer, licensed under the foregoing rules,

shall keep up a register, in the form B annexed to these rules, and shall
enter therein every petition written by him, and shall produce the register
for the inspection of any Court or Judicial or Revenue officer demanding it .
XIX. Every licensed Petition-writer shall, at his own expense, pro
vide himself with an official seal, to be made under the direction of the
Court which licenses him, on which shall be engraved, in the Urdu cha
racter, his name and the year in which he was licensed .
XX. Every licensed Petition -writer in writing petitions shall confine

himself to expressing in plain and simple language, such as the petitioner
can understand, and in a concise and proper form, the statements and ob
jects of the petitioner and shall not introduce any argument or quotation
from a Law Report or other Law book, or refer to any decision not brought
to his notice by the petitioner.†
XXI . Every licensed Petition -writer shall record , at the foot of every
petition written by him, other than a petition of a merely formal character,
a declaration, under his signature, that to the best of his knowledge and
belief his petition expresses the true meaning of the petitioner, and that
its contents have been fully explained to the petitioner.
XXII. Every licensed Petition-writer shall sign and scal with his
official seal, every petition written by him, and shall enter on it the num
ber which it bears in the register, and the fee which has been charged for
writing it.
If a license becomes damaged it may be replaced in the manner here provided in the
case of the license being lost.
+ The District Judge is the only officer authorized by law to take up cases under the
rules relating to Petition-writers.
48
Section 14 (b) . XXIII. No licensed Petition -writer shall ( 1 ) dictate a petition to, or
cause a petition to be written by a person who is not a licensed Petition
Petition-writers' writer ; or (2 ) employ any person who is not a licensed Petition -writer to
rules.
write petitions for him.‡
XXIV . Every licensed Petition-writer shall re-write at his own cost
any petition written by himself, when required to do so by order of compe
tent authority .
XXV . No licensed Petition -writer shall instigate any person to cause
to be written by himself, or by any other licensed Petition - writer, any
petition which he knows to be unnecessary .
XXVI . (i ) Subject to the provisions of rule XXX, every licensed
Petition-writer may make his own terms with his employer as to the re
muneration to be paid for his services.
Provided he enters correctly the actual amount agreed upon on the
petition, and in the proper column of his register.
(ii) No licensed Petition-writer shall take payment for his services
by an interest in the result of any litigation in connection with which he
is employed, or shall find, or contribute towards the funds employed in
carrying on any litigation in which he is not otherwise personally interest
ed.
XXVII. No licensed Petition-writer shall act as a recognised agent
in any case in a Civil Court or in a Revenue Court or office (except a case
in which he is himself a party) or in a Criminal Court or (subject to the
same exception) shall accept any Mukhtarnama, whether General or
Special, authorising him to act as a recognized agent in a Civil Court or
in a Revenue Court or office.
XXVIII . Every licensed Petition -writer, —
(1) the operation of whose license is suspended under rule XIV ;
(2) who enters the service of Government or of a Legal Practitioner ; or
(3) who is suspended or dismissed under these rules ; shall forth
with surrender his license to the Court under which it was held .
XXIX . No licensed Petition -writer shall practise ,
(1 ) contrary to the terms of his license ;
(2 ) in any Court or office in which he has been forbidden to practise
while such prohibition is in force ;
(3) after his license should have been or has been surrendered under
these rules ; or
(4) While under suspension.
D.-Procedure in dealing with breaches of rules and penalties.
XXX . Any Judicial or Revenue officer or Court who, upon the repre
sentation of any person employing a Petition-writer, after hearing such
Petition-writer (if he desires to be so heard) , finds that the fee charged
for writing a petition presented in his office or Court was excessive, may,
by order in writing, reduce the same to such sum as appears to be, under
A petition-writer who dictates a petition to an unlicensed person cannot be held guilty of

any offence under the said Rules as not having written the petition he would not be legally
bound to enter it in his register or sign or seal it. No. 28 PR. 89 Cr.
44
1884. PUNJAB COURTS.
the circumstances , reasonable and proper, and may require the Petition- Section -14 (b) ;
writer to refund the amount received in excess of such sum. An order 5
passed under this rule shall not be revised, except by the officer or Court rules.
Petition-writers' Į
who made it.
XXXI. Any Judicial or Revenue officer or Court may order a licensed

Petition-writer to re-write any petition written by him which contravenes rule
XX, or is illegible, obscure or prolix , or contains any irrelevant matter or
misquotation, or is, from any other cause, in the opinion of such officer or
Court, informal or otherwise objectionable. An order passed under this
rule shall not be open to revision by au officer or Court other than the
officer or Court which made the order.
XXXII. (i) The presiding officer of any Court (other than the Chief
Court) or of any office may, for any sufficient cause, to be recorded in writ
ing under his signature, prohibit any Petition-writer from practising in his
Court, or office, pending a reference, where the prohibition is issued by a
Financial Commissioner, to the Chief Court, and in any other case, to the
Ciourt under which such Petition-writer holds his license.
(ii) Every order of prohibition passed under this rule shall be com
municated to the Court under which the Petition -writer affected holds his :
license, and such Court shall forthwith endorse the substance and date of
the order on the liceuse under his own signature .
XXXIII . Any person who breaks rule II is liable to a penalty not

excceding rupees fifty, under section 14, sub- section (3 ) , of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1884, as amended .
XXXIV. Any licensed Petition -writer who breaks any of the rules
numbered XVIII , XIX, XXI , XXII , XXIII , XXV, XXVI, XXVII ,
XXVIII, and XXIX, is liable to a penalty not exceeding rupeos fifty,
under section 14, sub-section (3) , of the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, as
amended , and shall also be liable to be suspended , dismissed or reduced
under the next rule .
XXXV. (i) Any Petition-writer who
(1 ) habitually writes petitions contrary to rule XX, or containing

irrelevant matter, or which are informal or otherwise objection
able ; or
(2) in the course of his business as a Petition-writer uses disrespect

ful, insulting or abusive language* ; or
(3) is found to be incapable of efficiently discharging the functions of

a Petition-writer; or
(4) by reason of any fraudulent or improper conduct in the dis

charge of his duty as a Petition-writer is found to be unfit to
practise as such ; or
(5) is convicted of a criminal offence ; may be suspended or dismiss

ed, or if he is a petition-writer of the first grade, be reduced to
the second grade, in addition to any punishment to which he
may be liable under section 14, sub-sectíou (i) of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1884, as amended , or any other enactment for the
time being in force .
45
PUNJAB COURTS .
[ACT XVIII
Section 14 (b).
(ii) Every final order passed under this rule shall be communicated
to the Court under which the petition -writer affected holds his license , and
Petition -writers' such Court shall forthwith endorse the substance and date of the order on
rules.
the license under his own signature.
XXXVI. (i) Breaches of rule XXXV or of any other rule regulat

ing the conduct of business by licensed petition-writers, specified in rule
XXXIV, shall be cognizable by the Court under which the petition-writer
holds his license at the time of trial.*
(ii) Breaches of rule II shall be cognizable by the District Judge of

the District in which the alleged breach occurred .
See No. 28 P. R. , 89 Cr.
XXXVII. An order imposing a penalty for any breach of rule mer
..
tioned in rule XXXVI, clauses (i) and (ii ) , may be made by the officer
taking cognizance thereof, after such inquiry as he thinks fit .
Provided that no order shall be made under this rule unless the person
charged shall have had an opportunity of defending himself.
XXXVIII . Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained , the
Chief Court may, for any sufficient cause, to be recorded in writing, aud
after such inquiry as it thinks fit,
(1 ) dismiss any licensed petition-writer, or suspend him from
practise for a specified period ; and
(2) in the case of a licensed petition -writer of the first grade :---
(u) suspend him from practise in the Chief Court for a speci
fied period ; or
(4) reduce him to the second grade
Provided that no order shall be made under this rule unless the
person charged shall have had no opportunity of defending himself.
XXXIX . Any order, other than an order of dismissal made, and any
caution given instead of penalty, by a Court after an inquiry under rule
XXXVII or rulo XXXVIII , shall be noted on the back of the petition
writer's license by the Court passing the order, or under its direction .
XL. No appeal shall lie from any order passed by any Court or
officer under any of the preceding rules ; but the Chief Court, as regards
orders passed under rule XXXVII by any District Judge or any Divisional
Judge and the Divisional Court, as regards such orders passed by any
District Judge subordinate to it, may in its discretion revise any such
order, and in place thereof pass such order as it thinks fit .
XLI. The Chief Court may at any time, for sufficient reason, grant a
new license to any licensed petition -writer who has been dismissed, or direct
that any license of which the operation has been suspended by an order
under rules XIV, XXXV, or XXXVIII, or by the petition-writer entering
the service of Government or of a Legal Practitioner, be restored to him.
* The improper conduct ' of a petition-writer made a ground of dismissal under this
rule, is such conduct in the discharge of his duty " and does not justify the dismissal of a
petition -writer acting, not in the discharge of his duty, but his capacity as a private person:
and where under the same rule a petition-writer is liable to suspension39 or dismissal who in
any petition uses " insulting or abusive language " the word " petition must be interpreted
as restricted to petitious written by a petition-writer as such. No. 42 P. R. ES.
46
1884. ] PUNJAB COUrts .
XLII . Nothing in the foregoing rules shall be deemed to limit or Section 11 (^) ,]
restrict the exercise by the Chief Court of its general powers of
superintendence and control . Petition writers'
rules.
Schedule of rules, the breach of which renders the offender {liable to fine "under
Section 14, sub-section (3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1884, as amended.
A.--Unlicensed Persons.
Rule.
Practising as a Petitiōn- writer without a license [[
B.- Licensed Petition-writers.
Practising in higher grade than that for which licensed IV

Omitting to maintain prescribed register or to produce it
when required ... ... XVIII
Omitting to provide seal ... XIX
Omitting to record declaration on petition ... XXI
Omitting to sign, seal or give other particulars required
on a petition. ... XXII
Omitting to make true entry on petition or in register XXII
Causing petition to be written by unlicensed person XXIII
Instigating the writing of unnecessary petitions XXV
Omitting to enter correctly the actual amount of remunera
tion agreed upon, on the petition and in register. Taking
payment by an interest in the result of litigation XXVI
Acting as recognised agent for any party ... XXVII
Omitting to surrender license ... .. XXVIII
Practising while under suspension or while license is
surrendered ... ... ... XXIX
Disregarding prohibition from practise, pending reference XXXII
Omitting to comply with an order made under rule ... XXXI
Violation of rules, habitual writing of irrelevant or infor
mal or otherwise objectionable petition ... XXXV
Fraudulent or improper conduct in discharge of duty ... }
FORM A.-- (RULE XI .)
FORM OF LICENSE.
In the Court of the Judge of the

Certified that . son of
resident of has this day been licensed as a Petition-writer of
the grade, and is hereby permitted to practise as such in the manner
prescribed by rule IV, clause of the rules relating to Petition -writers in
the Punjab, and subject to the provisions of the said rules.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this
day of 189 " at
Seal Judge.
47
Section 14 (c) , FORM B- (RULE XVIII ) .

(d) & (e).
Register to be maintained by every Licensed Petition -writer.
Rules relating
residence
arentage
7
contents
abstract
3
instance
perition 7 8
petition
Signature
to copies.
charged
person
writing
which
Brief
whose
Petition
,cName
Date
aste
Value
Court
Description
writer
was
atfix
label
the
pand
petition
number
the
of
the
of
Fee
on
at
for
-fee
Serial
of
petition
of
.
.of
petition
of
.
the
written
ed
to
.
was
Remarks
written
petition
petition
.
.
.
.
(c) -determining in what cases persons prac
tising in those Courts shall be permitted
to address the Court in English ;
(d )-prescribing forms for seals to be used by

those Courts ;
(e) -regulating the procedure in cases where

any person is entitled to inspect a record
of any such Court or obtain a copy of
the same, and prescribing the fees pay
able by such persons for searches and
copies ;
RULES RELATING TO COPIES .
A.- Definitions.
1. In these rules
' Record' means and includes any portion of a record, and any docu
ment, map, plan or other paper attached to, or forming part of
the record of any suit or appeal, inquiry or trial, or other
Judicial proceeding in any Civil or Criminal Court.
' Copyist' means and includes any person engaged for the purpose
of making a copy or copies of any such record.
B.-Provisions for supply of copies.
II. (i) Subject to all proper exceptions and to these rules, due provi
sion shall be made for the supply of copies of the records of every Court,
whether Civil or Criminal, other than the Chief Court or the 1 Court of a
Divisional and Sessions Judge,
(a)-at the head quarters of the District in which such court is

situated, and subject to the provisions of the next clause of
this rule,
48
1884.1 PUNJAB COURTS .
(b)-at the place of sitting of every such Court which is situated at Section 14 (e) .
a distance of more than ten miles from such head-quarters .
Rules relating
(ii) Copies of the records of a Court of Small Causes or Cantonment to copies.
Magistrate, or of a Court the place of sitting of which is situated at a dis
tance of more than ten miles from the head-quarters of the district may,
subject to all proper exceptions and to these rules, be supplied at the placet
of sitting of such Conrt .
(a )—while the case, a copy of the record of which is applied for, is
pending ;
( -Within ten days of the passing of the final order of the Court
thereon :
Provided that in the case of a Court of Small Causes or Cantonment

Magistrate having a record office of its own, copies of records of such
Court may be supplied at the place of sitting of such Court at any time.
(iii) Copies of the records of the Court of Divisional or Sessions
Judge shall be supplied at the ordinary place of sitting of such Court .
C.- Persons entitled to copies of records.
III. (i ) A copy of record may be granted in the manner prescribed

by these rules to any person who, under the law for the time being in
force, is entitled to receive it.
(i ) A plaintiff or a defendant who has appeared to the suit is enti
tled, at any stage of the suit, to obtain copies of the record of the suit includ
ing exhibits which have been put in and finally accepted by the Court as
evidence .
N. B-A party who has been ordered to file a written statement is not en
titled to inspect or take a copy of a written statement filed by another party until
he has first filed his own.
(iii) A stranger to the suit may, after decree , obtain, as of course,
copies of the plaint, written statements, affidavits and petitions filed in the
suit, and may, for sufficient reason shown to the satisfaction of the Court,
obtain copies of any such documents before decree.
(ir) A stranger to the suit may also obtain, as of course, copies of

judgments, decrees or orders at any time after they have been passed or
made .
(1) A stranger to the suit has no right to obtain copies of exhibits
put in evidence, except with consent of the person by whom they were
produced.
D.- Application for copies of records.
IV. ( ) An application for a copy of a record may be made by any

person entitled to a copy under rule III, or by any person authorised by
any such person to act in his behalf.
Note. Theauthority need not necessarilyconsist of a formal power of attorney,

but the officer authorised to receive and deal with applications for copies must
satisfy himself, in such manner as he considers sufficient, that the person apply
ing is either himself entitled to the copy applied for under rule III, or has in
fact been authorised to act for a person who is so entitled .
49.
Section 14 (e)
(ii) Applications for copies of the records of Divisional and Sessions
Courts will be received by the chief ministerial officer for the time being
Rules relating of the Courts, or other officer for the time being appointed by the Divi
to copies.
sional and Sessions Judge in that behalf.
( ii) Applications for copies of the records of Courts of Small Causes
or of Cantonment Magistrates will be received by the Chief Ministerial
officer for the time being of such Court : provided the record, a copy of
which is applied for, is at the time of the application in the possession of
such Court.
(ie) Applications for copies of the records of any Civil or Criminal
Court other than the Chief Court, not provided for in clauses (ii) and (iii)
of this rule, will be received, in the case of applications made at the head
quarters of a District, by the officer (being a judicial office ) for the time
being appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in that behalf, and in the
case of applications for copies of records of Courts situated at a distance
of more than ten miles from head-quarters of the district, and made to such
Courts, by the presiding officer of the Court a copy of whose record is
applied for :
Provided that an application for a copy of a record of the Chief
Court, or of a Divisional or Sessions Court, made to a Lower Court or
office in which the record may be at the time of the application, shall not
be complied with without the permission of the Court concerned :
Provided further that applications for copies made to Courts situated
at a distance of more than ten miles from the head-quarters of the District,
shall be returned for presentation at the head-quarters of the district unless
they can be granted and complied with within the time prescribed by rule II .
V. (i) Every officer receiving an application for a copy of a record
-
shall
(a) endorse or cause to be endorsed thereon the date of presentation ;
(b) initial the endorsement ;
(c) cause the application to be registered as hereinafter provided and
(d) cause the Court fee thereon to be cancelled according to law.
(ii) A register ( in the form A annexed to these rules) shall be main
tained, in which every application for a copy of a record shall, upon pre
sentation, be forthwith entered by or under the orders of the officer receiv
ing the same. Separate registers shall be kept for English and Vernacular
copies respectively.
VI . (i) Every application for a copy of a record shall be accom
panied by a deposit in cash of a sum which shall not be less than the cost
of preparing and certifying such copy under these rules .
(ii) If the application is not accompanied by the cash deposit required
by the preceding clause of this rule, it shall be returned to the person pre
senting it with an endorsement recorded thereon, stating the amount of
the deposit required ; such endorsement shall be dated and signed by the
officer returning the application , and a note of the date of return shall be
made in the register .
(iii) The court-fee stamps, if any, which the law requires to be affix
ed to the copy, shall not be taken from the applicant until the copy is ready
for delivery ; but, at the time of receiving his application , the applicant
50
should be informed of the value of the Court fee (if any) required , and Section 14 (e)
that unless it is furnished when the copy is ready for delivery, the copy
will not be delivered to him. Rules relating
to copies:
E - Fees.
h
VII. (i) For every copy there will be charged a copying fee and a
Record office fee.
(ii) The record office fee will be a sum charged in addition to the
copying fee, and equal to one-fourth of its amount .
(iii) . The following shall be the maximum scale of copying fee :
ENGLISH COPIES.
t Rs . A. P.
Two hundred words and under 060
Every additional hundred words ... 020
VERNACULAR COPIES.
Two hundred words and under 030

Every additional hundred words ... 010
These rates include the cost of the paper, which will be supplied by
the copyist. For field maps, boundary maps, tabular work, and similar
work, a special charge will be fixed by the officer granting the copy, sub
ject to the approval of the Court a copy of whose record is applied for.
(iv) Subject to the provisions of these rules, all copying fees, which
shall be levied, shall be expended on the making, revising and attesting
of copies of records applied for.
(v) Every record office fee levied under this rule shall be credited
to the Record Office fund of the Court concerned, in accordanco with the
rules for the time being regulating such funds .
F.-Appointment, remuncration and removal of copyists.

VIII. ( ) Divisional and Sessions Judges in regard to their own
Courts , Judges of Courts of Small Causes and Cantonment Magistrates in
regard to their own Courts, and Deputy Commissioners in regard to all
Courts, whether Civil or Criminal, within their respective districts, whose
records are kept in the District Record Office, may engage a sufficient
number of persons qualified to make copies of records for the purpose of
being supplied to persons entitled thereto. The number of persons so
engaged should be strictly limited to actual requirements for the work of
copying, in either the English or the Urdu language, as the case may be.
(ii) Persons engaged as copyists should be
(a) of assured good character ; and

(6) competent to write fast and 1 well in English or Urdu, as the case
may be.
(iii) A register (in the form B annexed to these rules) of copyists

appointed , shall be maintained in the office of every authority empowered
51
PUNJAB COURTS. [ACT XVII
Section 14 (e) to engage copyists under this rule. The name of every persou engaged
as a copyist shall be entered in such register, together with the further.
Rules relating particulars therein prescribed .
to copies,
IX. Copyists will be remunerated from the fees realised under these
rules. Subject to the provisions of these rules, every copyist will receive
nine-tenths of the entire copying-fee taken in respect of the copy made
from the person applying for it. In no case should the fees realised for
making copies be placed in a fund , and under no circumstances, should a
copyist, be entertained at a fixed salary .
X. (i) The authority engaging a copyist may, at any time, aud

without assigning reason for so doing, dispense with his services.
(ii) Any copyist who is found to be
(a) unfit to be entrusted with Judicial records for the purposes of

his duties ;
(b) careless or negligent in the performance of his duties ; or

(c) inefficient or otherwise unsuitable ;
may be dismissed by the authority engaging him . The appointing authori
ty may, for any sufficient reason , reduce the rate of remuneration allowed
to any copyist under rule IX, to such rate, and for such period , as such
authority may deem fit.
G.- Manner ofmaking copies.
XI.-Every copy made under these rules shall be written
(a) in a good legible hand ;

( ) upon paper of the prescribed quality ;
(e) with ink of good quality ; and
( ) in the case of copies made in the Urdu language, in the
Nastalik character.
XII. Every copy of a Judgment or order of a Civil Court shall com

mence with a heading containing the following information :
(a ) the Court by which the suit or appeal was decided, giving the
name of and powers exercised by the presiding officer ; and
also, where such Court is an Appellate Court, the name and
official designation of and the powers exercised by the officer
whose order was appealed and the date of that order ;
(b) the date of institution of the suit or appeal, as the case may be ;
(c) the name, parentage, trade, or occupation and place of residence
(stating Tahsil and District) , of each plaintiff and defendant ;
(d) the value of the suit or appeal for purposes of jurisdiction ;

(e) a full and correet statement of the nature and value of the sub
ject-matter of the suit or appeal, as set forth in the plaint or
appeal, and, in suits regarding land or other immoveable proper
ty, the name of the city, town, or village, and the tahsil and
district within which the property in dispute is situate.
52
XIII . Every copy of a Judgment or order of a Criminal Court shall Section 14 (e) .,
commence with a heading containing the following information : ----
Rules relating
(2) The Court by which the case was decided , with the name of to copies.
and powers exercised by the presiding officer, and also, where
t
such Court is an Appellate Court, the name of and powers
exercised by the officer whose order was appealed , and the
date of that order ;
(2) The name, parentage , trade or occupation , and place of resi

dence, (stating tahsil and district) of the complainant and
accused ;
() the offence committed and sentence passed .

XIV. (i) The copies supplied should ordinarily be limited to the
records applied for ; but in cases in which the Appellate Court has made
an order of remand , a copy of the order of remand and of the return order
made thereto, should accompany the copy of the final order, whether speci
fically mentioned in the application or not.
(ii) If the application includes the whole or any portion of the record
in addition to the judgment or order and decree, the copy of the judg
ment or order and decree shall be first made and supplied, and then the
copy of the other portion of the record applied for. In no case should the
delivery of a copy of the judgment or order and decree (required for
purposes of appeal) be delayed until copies of other portions of the record
applied for can be made and delivered .
(iii) Copies of copies should not be granted unless expressly asked
for as such. When granted they should be expressly marked as copies of
copies.
XV. In granting copies of records, if the copies cover more than one
sheet of paper, the sheets of paper on which the copy is made should be
stitched together in book form, and should not be attached, one to the
erd of another so as to form a roll.
XVI. After the copy has been made, and before it has been revised
and attested , the following matters shall be endorsed thereon and in the
prescribed register, in the case of copies made in the English language,
in English, and , in the case of copies made in Urdu, in that language :
( ) the number of the application on the register ;
(5) the date of presentation of the application for a copy ;
(e) the date of return for deposit of copying fee, if so returned ;
(d) the date of making required deposit of copying fees ;
(e) the number of words copied ;
(1) the amount paid as copying fees ;
(g) the name of the copyist ;
( ) the date on which the copying was completed by the copyist.
The copy will then be revised and attested, in the manner hereinafter
prescribed .
H.—Appointment, duties and remuneration of revising and attesting officers .
XVII. Every copy shall be revised and attested in the case of
Divisional and Sessions Courts, Courts of Small Canses, Courts of Can
53
Section 14 (c) . tonment Magistrates, or Courts at a distance of more than ten miles from
head-quarters , by the Chief Ministerial Officer for the time being of such
Rules elating Court, and in the case of the Courts of District Magistrates and Magistrates
to copies.
subordinate to them, by the Head Clerk for the time being of the English
Office of the Deputy Commissioner, the Superintendent for the time being
of the vernacular office of the Deputy Commissioner, or such other officer
as the Deputy Commissioner may from time to time appoint in that behalf :
Provided that no officer other than a paid officer of Government , or
occupying a position lower than that of reader to a Court, shall be appoint
ed under this rule :
Provided further that in the ease of any copy certified by an officer

other than the Chief Ministerial Officer or Head Clerk or Superintendent
aforesaid, such copy shall, before delivery to the person applying for the
same, be countersigned by a Judicial Officer. Such Judicial Officer shall,
if possible, be the Judicial Officer, a copy of a record of whose Court it is .
XVIU . (1) Every revising and attesting officer shall, before he attests
any copy in the manner prescribed by these rules : ---
( a ) personally compare every such copy with the original record
from which it has been made ;
( ) attest every alteration made in such copy, by initialling the same ;

(e) write the date and his initials across the Court fee label or labels
(if any) affixed to the copy ;
( ) examine and initial the endorsements made upon the copy in
accordance with these rules ;
( ) examine the headings and form of the copy, and see that they
are in accordance with the law, rules and directions applying
to such copy ;
(f) see that the copy is written on the prescribed quality of paper
and in neat and legible handwriting ; and
(g) be responsible that the provisions of the law and of the rules
and orders of the Chief Court have been in all respects compli
ed with.
(i) When any copy is found to be in all respects correct and ready
for delivery to the applicant, the revising and attesting officer shall endorse
thereupon the following words : - Certified to be a true copy ' --and shall
sign and date the endorsement and subscribe his official designation, be
low which he shall endorse the following words -
"
Authorised by Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.' He
shall then cause the proper seal to be affixed to the copy. If the copy com
prises more than one sheet of paper, the revising and attesting officer shall
endorse the word ' attested' on every such sheet, and shall enter his initials
and the date thereunder.
(iii) The officer attesting copies shall, before any copy is delivered,
endorse thereupon the date of such delivery and cancel the Court fee labels,
if any, affixed to it, punching out a portion of the label in such a manner as
to remove neither the figure-head nor that part of the label upon which its
value is expressed . He shall then write the date and his own signature
across each such label, so that some portion of such signature shall appear
upon the paper to which the label is affixed as well as on the label itself.
54
XIX. In the event of any copy being found to be unfit for issue by Section 14 (e) .
reason that it—
Rules relating
(a ) has not been clearly, legibly or neatly written ; to copies."
(6) is not in the prescribed form or on paper of the prescribed quality ;

(c) is so incorrect that revision has renderod it unfit for issue ;
(d) does not conform to the rules and orders of the Chief Court ; or
(e) is otherwise incomplete, defective or open to objection ;
the revising and attesting officer shall forthwith write the word cancelled '
across the copy, and shall direct the copyist who compared it to make a
fresh copy without further charge. Such copyist shall forthwith comply
with the order .
XX . Revising and attesting officers should bring to the notice ofthe

head of the office the conduct of any copyist who contravenes any of these
rules.
XXI. The revising and attesting officer shall receive, by way of re

muneration, one-tenth of the entire copying fee taken in respect of the
copy attested from the person applying for it .
Provided that where the revising and attesting officer is the chief
ministerial officer of a Court, the presiding officer of such Court, and in
any other case, the Deputy Commissioner may, for any sufficient reason ,
withhold the whole or any portion of the remuneration allowed by this rule
in respect of a particular copy or in respect of all copies for the specified
period .
I.-Deductions to be credited to Government.
XXII . All sums deducted or withheld from the remuneration of copy

ists or revising and attesting officers, under the provisions of rules X and
XXI shall be paid into the Treasury to the credit of Government.
J.- Delivery of Copies.
XXIII . (i ) When any copy has been duly made, revised and attested ,
and is in all respects complete and ready, for delivery, the copyist will pre
sent it to the officer entrusted with the duty of receiving applications for
copies . Such officer will call for the applicant, and, if it has not already
been supplied, demand the Court fee (if any) leviable in respect of such copy,
and shall cause the same to be affixed to the copy and to be duly cancelled
in the manner prescribed in clause (iii) of rule XVIII . The copy shall
then be delivered to the applicant .
(ii) Should the applicant not be present when first called to receive
the copy, his name should be called on three successive days, and, if he
fails to present himself within that period, his application should be filed ,
and the copy should not be given to him until a fresh application on the pre
scribed Court fee is made.
XXIV . The cause of delay in preparing a copy beyond the third day
from the date of application should invariably be noted on the copy, and
should be certified to by the revising and attesting officer.
55
Section 14 (e) . K.- Supervision .
Rules relating XXV. (i) An Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assisstant Com

to copics. missioner should be placed in immediate charge of the Copying Departmen
at the head- quarters of each district, under the Deputy Commissioner .
(ii) The officer in charge should be required
(a) to examine the registers of applications for copies frequently ;

( ) to see that copies are supplied within three days of the date of
application unless he shall, for sufficient reason, have allowed
further time in any particular case ;
(c ) to see that Court fees have been correctly affixed to copies, and
entered in the prescribed registers of the Court fees ;
(d) to supervise the copyists and revising and attesting officers in
the discharge of their duties, and report auy dereliction of duty
on the part of any member of the establishment to the Deputy
Commissioner ; and
(e) to take measures to have the rules promptly and carefully com
plied with.
(iii) The Deputy Commissioner should occasionally inspect the registers

of Court fees and applications for copies.
(iv) In the case of Divisional and Sessions Court, and Small Causes or
other Courts granting copies of records without reference to the District
Record Office , the presiding officer of the Court should exercise supervision
over the copying department in the manner specified in clause (ii) of this
rule .
L.- Copies of records before the Chief Court.
XXVI . Whenever an application is made for a copy of a record in a

case in which the files are before the Chief Court, the application should be
forwarded to the Chief Court for disposal. If the application be made
under section 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a prisoner in jail,
and be submitted with grounds of appeal or for revision, the petition of
appcal or for revision should be forwarded at the same time.
56
បទ
Serial Number
2
.
of
Name of officer who passed the

Name
applica
order of which copy is

re.
nt
quired.
3
Number of case and names of

parties.
4
Nature of case.
5
Date of decision.
Date of presentation of appli
cation for copy,
7
Date of return for deposit of

copying and record fees.
8
Date of making the required

deposit of copying and re
cord fees.
9
Number of words copied.

10
-
A.
V.
vide
Amount of copying fees.

of
.for
RULE
FORM
11
copies
Register
Application
Amount of record office fees.

12
P.
..
ARs
Name of Copyist.
13
Date on which copy was com

pleted by the copyist.
14
Date on which copy was ex.

amined and certified.
15
Date of delivery of copy to

applicant.
16
• sodoo ი g
REMARKS.
(a) i a
17 [ +881
D
to copies.
Section 14 (e).
Rules relating
FORM
R-
BULE
.VIII
58
Register
Copyists
of
the
office
(oin
Court
)rf of
2 3 6 7
-.
this
In
column
should
entered
be
any
order
affectin
position
the
of
copyist
as g
Name
. Fath
nam
. eer's , ith
date
the
such
wof
order
punish
other
,oe.g.,crensure
tment
d
,rransfereath
esig
pation
,&
c.dismissal
Residence.
Age.
Educational test passed, if any.
Where employed.
Signature of appointing officer
PUNJAB COURTS.
[ACT XVIII
RULES RELATING TO INSPECTION OF RECORDS . Section 14 (e).
(A) In Subordinate Courts. Rules relating

to Inspection of
I. Records of decided cases shall be open to the inspection of the files.
public, subject to the general control of the head of the office .
The Divisional Judge for the record of his own Court, the Deputy
Commissioner for the records of all District Courts, and the Judge of a
Court of Small Canses for the records of such Court, shall be deemed to be
the head of the office .
II. Records of pending cases shall be open to the inspection of the

parties or their pleaders or agents alone, subject to the general control of
the Judge of the Court in which the case is pending.
Inspection shall not be allowed on the day fixed for the hearing of the
cases without the special permission of the presiding Judge.
III. The inspection of records shall be made at such time, in such
place, and in the presence of such official as the head of the office , in the
case of records of decided cases, and the presiding Judge, in the case of
records of pending cases, may direct : Provided that records of cases to
which Government is a party, may be inspected by the Government Advo
cate of the Punjab at the office of the Deputy Registrar of the Chief Court
at Lahore . The Deputy Registrar will, on the application of the Govern
ment Advocate, call for the files of any case required from the District in
which such case is pending, or on record, and will cause it to be returned ,
in due course, after inspection .
IV. Application for inspection of records shall be made in writing
on plain paper, and shall distinctly specify the record which it is desired
to inspect, and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
V. The fee paid for inspection shall be as follows , namely,
For the first hour or part of an hour -one rupee .
For each subsequent hour or part of an hour -eight annas .
If more time than is covered by the fee paid with the application be
occupied in the inspection, the balance shall be paid at the close of the in
spection.
Note- These rules do not authorise a Court to charge a fee of one rupee
when a record is sent for and inspected by a Court of first instance on the appli
cation of a party, under the provisions of section 137 of the Code of Civil Proce
It should be remembered, however, that every application made under
section 137 must (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit
of the applicant or his pleader, showing that the production of the record is
necessary.
VI. A separate application shall be made, and a separate fee paid for
each record which it is desired to inspect, unless the records are so closely
connected that in the opinion of the head of the office or presiding Judge,
they may be regarded as one, in which case one application and one fee will
suffice .
VII. If any record, for inspection of which an order has been given is
incomplete , or not in the record-room , or is for any sufficient cause not
available for inspection, the head of the office or presiding Judge shall
direct refund of the fee, and shall pass such order regarding future in
spection as he may think fit.
59
Section 14 (c). VIII. The copying of any document or paper of a record during in
spection, and the use of pen and ink are strictly prohibited . Pencil and
Rules relating paper may be used for the purpose of taking notes, but no mark shall be
to Inspection of made on any record or paper inspected . Infringement or attempted infringe
files.
ment of this rule shall deprive the person infringing of the right of
inspection.
IX. Fees realised under these rules shall be credited to the Record
Office Fund of the Court concerned .
X. Any special establishment necessary for the inspection of records

will be entertained by the authority having the control of, and will be
paid from, the Record Office Fund .
XI. Fees received under these rules in any Court located at a place
where there is a Government Treasury or Sub-treasury, shall be paid daily
into such treasury or sub-treasury to the credit of the proper Record
Office Fund ; fees received in any Court located at a place at which there
is no such treasury shall be so paid into the nearest treasury or sub-treasury
monthly or oftener, the intermediate custody of the money received being
provided for by the presiding officer of the Court, subject to the direction
and the control of the Court to which he is subordinate .
Note.--Inspection fees realised under these rules in Divisional Courts, Pro
vincial Small Cause Courts and Cantonment Small Cause Courts, are to be cre
dited to the Record Office Fund of the Divisional Court. Inspection fees realised
in all other courts, are to be credited in the District Record Office Fund. The
former is under the control of the Divisional Court and the latter of the Deputy
Commissioner.
XII. An account of income and expenditure shall be submitted in the
prescribed form to the Chief Court by the Divisional Judges and Deputy
Commissioners with the Annual Civil Statements .
(B) In the Chief Court.
I. The inspection of records of decided cases will only be allowed

under the orders of a Judge.
II. Records of pending cases will be open, as of course, to the
inspection of the parties or their authorised agents, or any Advocate,
Pleader or Mukhtar of the Chief Court who is duly authorised to act in
the case : Provided that an Advocate or Pleader of the Chief Court may
inspect the file of any such case on giving assurance that he is in com
munication with one of the parties with a view to being retained in it :
Provided also that the inspection of a file will not be permitted on the
date fixed for hearing, without the special order of the Judge or one of
the Judges before whom the case is pending, and that a double fee will be
charged in all such cases in which inspection is permitted.
III. With the exception of the persons above mentioned, no one will
be allowed access to the file of a pending case without the special order of
a Judge.
IV. Applications under the first and third of the foregoing rules
shall be made by petition duly stamped . Other applications shall be made
in writing on a printed form . Applications must be made to the Deputy
Registrar before 4p. m., and must be accompanied by a fee of oue rupee,
or where a double fee is chargeable two rupees, and must distinctly
specify the record of which inspection is desired.
60
V. A separate application shall be made, and a separate fee charged , Section 14

for each record inspection of which is desired, unless the cases are SO (g), (h).
closely connected that, in the opinion of the Deputy Registrar, they may
be regarded as one, in which case one application and one fee will
suffice.
VI. ( ) Records shall be inspected only in the room set apart for the
purpose, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., in the presence of the
Bar-room clerk or other proper officer of the Court, who shall remain in
attendance during the above-mentioned hours . It will be the duty of the
Bar-room clerk or other officer aforesaid to supervise all inspections, and
to see that the rules relating thereto are duly observed . It will not be his
duty to assist any person by reading or otherwise, in the inspection of a
file, and heis strictly prohibited from doing so . No mark shall be made on
any record or paper inspected , and no servant of any member of the Bar
shall be allowed on any account to take notes for his master. Pen and ink
are not to be used by any person inspecting a file . Any infringement of
the rule will deprive the person infringing it of the right of in
spection.
(i.) Except in the case of connected files, inspection of which has

been permitted for a single fee, access will be permitted to the record of
one case only at a time.
VII.
The fee provided in rule IV shall entitle the applica
nt to in
spect the record on one day only . If the inspecti of t h e r e c o rd is desired
on
on another day, a fresh applicat sh b r a
ion al l e e q u i r ed nd a fresh
fee paid .
VIII. Police papers received in the Chief Court in connection with

any pending Criminal case, and translations of such papers, shall not be
made available for inspection, either by the accused or by his agent, or by
any legal practitioner retained on his behalf.
(1) Conferring and imposing on the Ministerial

officers of the Courts subject to its super
intendence such powers and duties of a
non-judicial or quasi -judicial nature as it
thinks fit, and regulating the mode in
which powers and duties so conferred
and imposed shall be exercised and per
formed ;
(g) prescribing forms for such books entries ,

statistics and accounts as it thinks neces
sary to be kept, made or compiled in
these Courts or submitted to any autho
rity ;
"
(h) providing for the inspection of those

Courts and supervision of the working
thereof ; and
61
PUNJAB COTS.UR [ACT XVIII
Section 14.
(i) regulating all such matters as it may think
Rules-Record fit, with a view to promoting the efficiency
Office Fund. of the Judicial and Ministerial officers of
those Courts and mainntaining proper
discipline among those officers .
RULES REGULATING THE RECORD OFFICE FUNDS OF DIVISIONAL AND SMALL

CAUSE COURts .
I. The income derived from

(1) inspection fecs, levied under the authority of Rules and orders
No. XXIII ; (cide supra p. 59) .
(2) record office fecs, levied under the authority of Rules and
Orders No. XXIV ;
(3) Sales of waste paper under the authority of Rules and Orders
No. XXXIX ;
in each Divisional Court and in every Small Cause Court subordinate

thereto (whether situated in Cantonment or at the head-quarters of a
Civil District) , should be paid into the credit of the Record Office Fund .
or (as it is called by the Accounts Department) the Incorporated Local
Fund of such Divisional Court.
II. Divisional Judges are authorised to sanction expenditure from

the fund thus constituted , falling under any of the following heads, whe
ther on account of their own Courts or on account of any Small Cause Court
subordinate to them,
(1 ) facilitating the inspection of records ;
(2) meeting the comfort and convenience of the litigating public ;

(3) effecting improvements in the Record Office of the Divisional
Court or of any Small Cause Court subordinate to it ; and
(4) providing for the care of Court Libraries .
III. No expenditure is to be incurred from the Record Office Fund

which might, in the ordinary course, be met from budget allotments for
judicial contingencies or similar heads of account ; and no charges for the
construction or repair of buildings, which might ordinarily be borne by
the Public Works Department, are to be debited to the Record Office
Fund .
IV. Divisional Judges will be held personally responsible that no

expenditure from the fund, not coming strictly within the heads specified
in the preceding paragraph, is sauctioned or permitted .
V. All cheques drawn against the Record Office Fund of a Divisional
Court will be signed by the Divisional Judge .
VI. The Divisional Judge will keep an account of the Fund and will
submit a copy of the account at the close of each quarter to the Registrar
62
of the Chief Court , for the information of the Chief Court . Any expen Section 14.
diture not authorised by these instructions will be disallowed by the Chief
Court. Rules-Record
Office Fund.
VII. Judges of Small Cause Courts, desiring sanction to any expen

diture from the Fund, will apply to the Divisional Judge to whom they are
subordinate, and it will rest with him to sanction or disallow such expen
diture .
VIII. It will be the duty of Divisional Judges to see that income

falling under the heads specified in paragraph 3 of these instructions is
duly credited to the Record Office Fund of the Court by Small Cause Courts
as well as by their own Courts .
IX. At the close of each financial year, namely, on the 31st March,
the amount at credit of the Fund of each Divisional Court in excess of Rs.
150 will be forthwith credited to Government by the Divisional Judge . If
for any sufficient reason, a Divisional Judge considers it necessary to retain
the whole or any portion of the closing balance in the Fand , in excess of
150, in order to meet special expenditure, he must obtain the previous
sanction of Government (through the Chief Court) for the purpose.
X.-The account to be maintained in Divisional Courts should be in

the annexed form . A copy of the entire account should reach the Regis
trar within fifteen days of the close of each quarter. This account will be
examined in the Chief Court Office in order to see that the expenditure in
curred is permissible under rule II, and that these instructions have been
duly observed . A cash-book of income and expenditure should be kept
up by the clerk of the Divisional Court and signed by the Divisional Judge
weekly or oftener. The cheque-book should remain in the custody of the
Divisional Judge. All income should, when possible, be sent daily to the
treasury ; under no circumstances should it be transmitted later than on
the working day succeeding that on which it is received.
XI. At the close of each financial year (31st March) an abstract

account for the whole year will be submitted to the Registrar of the Chief
Court, showing the annual income grouped under the three heads of ( 1)
inspection fees, (2 ) Record Office fees, and (3 ) sales of waste paper ; and
the annual expenditure grouped under ( 1 ) establishments, and ( 2 ) other
charges.
XII. At the close of each month a balance should be struck and veri
fied by reference to the Treasury Officer.
XII.-Proper vouchers should be kept supporting expenditure. Each

item of income should be supported by the treasury receipt . In order to
enable the Divisional Judge to check sums paid into the treasury by
Small Canse Courts , the Judge of each Small Cause Court should submit
monthly to the Divisional Judge a list of all sums paid into the treasury by
his Court, together with the treasury receipts.
XIV . -Cheque-books, accounts -books and forms required for the pur
poses of Record Office Funds should be provided at the cost of those Funds
and should be charged accordingly.
+63
PUNJAB COURTS . ACT XVIII
Section 14. Record Office Fund of the Divisional Court at
Description
Description
Rules -Capa
city of Judicial RECEIPTS. EXPENDITURE.
Officer.
item
item
re
of
of
expenditure
Voucher
Voucher
Name of Court
Name of Court on account of
paying in the
Amount
Amount
which the
No.
No.
amount.
.
charge is made.
ceipt
. te
. e
.
.
Dat
.
Da
Note. In order to enable the Chief Court to check the account, the balance
should be verified by reference to the Treasury Officer, and initialled by the
Divisional Judge ; and each item of receipt and expenditure should be separately
entered, the Court to which the item relates being specified.
RULES PROVIDING THAT THE CAPACITY IN WHICH AN OFFICER ACTS IN ANY JUDICIAI
PROCEEDING SHALL BE SET FORTH IN THE PROCEEDING.
(4).- Civil.
I. Every judicial officer hearing or deciding a civil suit, proceeding,

or appeal, is responsible that the record and the final order or judgment
and the decree in such Civil suit, proceeding or appeal, shall disclose the
Civil powers which such officer exercised in hearing or deciding such suit,
proceeding or appeal .
II. The powers above referred to are the following :
Munsiff, third class ;
Munsiff, second class ;
Munsiff, first class ;
Judge, Court of Small Causes ;

Munsif, &c. , invested with the powers of a Judge of a Court of
Small Causes ;
Sub- Judge, second class ;
Sub-Judge, first class ;
Additional District Judge ;
District Judge ;
Additional Divisional Judge :
Divisional Judge.
64
1984.] · PUNJAB COURts .
Section 15.
III. When the powers exercised by Special Judges invested with
powers under section 28 of the Punjab Courts Act differ from those stated
in Rule II, such powers must be specifically stated .
(L).-Criminal .
IV. Every Judicial Officer hearing, conducting or deciding a Criminal
proceeding, trial or appeal is responsible that the record and the final order
in such Criminal proceeding, trial or appeal shall disclose the Criminal
powers which such officer exercised in hearing or deciding such proceed
ing, trial or appeal.
V.The powers referred to in rule IV are the following :
Magistrate, third class ;
Magistrate, second class ;
Magistrate, first class ;
Additional District Magistrate ;
District Magistrate ;
District Magistrate , empowered under Section 30 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure ;
Additional Sessions Judge ;
Joint Sessions Judge ;
Sessions Judge ;
Special Magistrates, of first, second or third class ;

Bench of Magistrates, first, second or third class ;
Assistant Cantonment Magistrate ;
Cantonment Magistrate ;
Justice of the Peace.
VI.- When an officer exercises a power specially conferred , -as , for

example, the power to try cases summarily, or the power to pass sentence
of whipping in the case of a Magistrate of the second class, the record and
final order in any criminal proceeding or trial shall disclose the fact that
such officer is specifically empowered in that behalf.
( 2) A rule made under clause (a), (b ) , ( c) , (f), (g) ,
(h), or (i) , shall not take effect until it has been
sanctioned by the Local Government and has been
published in the official Gazette ,
(3 ) Whoever breaks any rule made under

clause (b) shall be punished with a fine which may
extend to fifty rupees .
15. ( 1 ) The Chief Court shall keep such regis

ters , books and accounts as may be necessary for
the transaction of the business of the Court, and
shall submit to the Local Government such of
those registers, books and accounts, and such
statements of the work done in the Court, as may
be required by the said Government.
65
Section 16. The Chief Court shall also comply with

(2)
requ isitions as may be made by the Governor
Rules-Proce such
dure in Che General in Council, or by the Local Government ,
Court.
for certified copies of, or extracts from, the records
of the Chief Court and the Courts subordinate
thereto .
16. (1 ) The Chief Court , when sitting as a Court
of Civil Judicature, shall take evidence and record
judgments and orders in such manner as it, by
rule, directs, and may frame forms for any proceed
ing in the Court in the exercise of its Čivil juris
diction .
(2) The following provisions of the Code of

Civil Procedure shall not apply to the Chief Court
in the exercise of its original Civil jurisdiction ;
namely, sections 119, 182 to 185 (both inclusive) ,

187, 189 to 191, (both inclusive) , 192 , ( so far as it
relates to the manner of taking evidence) , 198 ,
200 to 204 (both inclusive ) , and so much of section
409 as relates to the making of a memorandum.
(3 ) Section 579 ofthe said Code shall not apply

to the Chief Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
RULES REGULATING THE PROCEDURE IN CIVIL JURISDICTION.
1.--Original Civil Jurisdiction .

A.- Evidence.
I. When at the first hearing of the suit or at any subsequent hearing,

any party appearing in person or present in Court, or any person able
to answer any material questions relating to the suit by whom such party
or his pleader is accompanied, is examined by the Court, the substance of
such examination shall be reduced to writing by the Judge, and shall form
part of the record.
II. The substance of what each witness deposes shall be reduced to
writing by the Judge and shall form part of the record : provided that the
Judge may, if he thinks proper, direct the evidence to be taken down in
writing by an officer of the Court, either in English or in the language of
the Court ; and when such direction is given, the provision of sections 182
and 183 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, except so far as the
former requires the deposition to be taken down in the language of the
Court.
III. If any question put to a witness be objected to by a party or his
pleader and the court allows the same to be put, the Judge shall take down
the question and answer, and if the person objecting wishes his objection
to be recorded, the judge shall receive from him a note of the objection,
which shall form part of the record.
66
Section 16.
IV. If the judge who has taken down or causes to be taken down in
his presence any evidence under these rules, dies or ceases to be attached to
Rules-Proce
the Court before the conclusion of the suit , the Judge before whom the suit dure in Chief
is continued may, if he thinks fit, deal with the evidence already takeu Court.
down as if it had been taken down by himself or in his presence .
B. -Judgments and Orders.
V. Judgments may be written by the Judge in English or delivered

orally, and in the latter case a note thereof in writing or short-hand, in the
English language, shall be taken by an officer of the Court in attendance
for the purpose. On a memorandum of appeal being filed , or if the Judge
shall direct, the note so taken shall be written out in full by the officer by
whom it was taken, and shall be submitted by him to the Judge for correc
tion. If it be returned by the Judge without correction, it shall be filed
as the official note of the judgment ; and if corrected by the Judge , it shall
be filed as corrected , as the judgment of the Court .
VI . The judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the

points for determination , the decision thereon, and the reasons for such
decision . When issues have been framed, the finding or decision of the
Court upon each separate issue shall be stated, with the reason therefor
unless the finding upon any one or more of the issnes be sufficient for the
decision of the suit.
VII. Judgments shall be delivered in open Court , either at the close

of the case or on some future day, of which notice shall be given to the
parties of their pleaders .
VIII . The judgment shall, if any of the parties so require, be trans

lated into the language of the Court, and the translation shall be signed
by such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf.
NOTE. Every such translation shall be made in the Translating Department

of the Chief Court, and shall be signed and certified by the Translator who made
it and by the Head Translator, and shall be countersiged by the Deputy
Registrar.
IX . When a case has been heard by a Bench of the Court, the
written opinions of the Judges who heard the case but who have ceased to
be attached to the Court before delivery of judgment, shall, unless deliver
ed by another Judge of the Bench which heard the case, be deemed to be
minutes merely and not judgment .
X. When a party to the suit dies after the last hearing but before
delivery of judgment, the Court may order the judgment to bear the
date of the last hearing.
XI. A memorandum of appeal in a case in which judgment has been
given orally shall be received and filed without a copy of the judgment.
XII. When an order is made in Court or Chambers, a note of its
purport shall be made and signed by the Judge or Judges making the
order ; and if the order disposes of a petition, the reasons for making it
shall be stated .
XIII. Orders not written in the language of the Court need not be
translated into that language, unless an authorised copy be applied for,
and the party applying desire to have it in the language of the Court.
67
Section 16. XIV. When a suit is allowed to be withdrawn with leave to bring a
fresh suit, the order shall be drawn up so as to make the payment of the
Rules-Proce- costs of the first suit a condition precedent to the plaintiff bringing a fresh
dure in Chief suit, unless the Court or the Judge who gave permission shall otherwise
Court.
direct.
-Appellate Civil Jurisdiction.
II.
A.-Judgments and Orders.
XV. Judgments may be written by the Judge in English or deliver
ed orally, and in the latter case a note thereof in writing or short -hand , in
the English language, shall be taken by an officer of the Court in attendancə
for the purpose. On a memorandum of appeal being filed, or if the Judge
shall so direct, the note so taken shall be written out in full by the officer
by whom it was taken, and shall be submitted by him to the Judge for
correction . If it be returned by the Judge without correction , it shall be
filed as the official note of the judgment ; and, if corrected by the Judge
it shall be filed , as corrected , as the judgment of the Court.
XVI. Judgments shall be delivered in open Court either at the close
of the case or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the
parties or their pleaders.
XVII. The judgment shall, if any of the parties so require, be
translated into the language of the Court, and the translation shall be sign
ed by such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf :
Provided that, when the Judge of the Court of first instance or lower
Appellate Court is not acquainted with English, a translation of the Judg
ment shall be made and transmitted to such Court.
XVIII. When an appeal has been heard by a Bench of the Court, the
written opinions of the Judges who heard the appeal, but have ceased to
be attached to the Court before delivery of judgment shall, unless deliver
ed by another Judge of the Bench which heard the appeal, be deemed to
be minutes merely, and not judgments.
XIX. When a party to the appeal dies after the hearing but before
delivery of judgment, the Court may order the judgment to bear the
date of the last hearing .
XX. Orders not written in the language of the Court need not be
translated into that language unless an authenticated copy be applied for,
and the party applying desire to have it in the language of the Court.
B.-Appellate Decrees.
XXI. The decree of the Chief Court shall be drawn up in English
and shall bear the same date as the judgment .
XXII. ( ) The decree shall contain the number of the appeal, the
names and description of the appellant and respondent , the names of the
plaintiff and defendant in the suit, and the description of the Conrt from
whose decree or order the appeal is preferred, with the date of such decree
or order ; and shall clearly state the relief granted or other determination
of the appeal, in such manner as not to render reference to other docu
ments necessary, except the decrees of the Courts below, when those
decrees are affirmed or varied but not reversed .
Note. In all important cases the Deputy Registrar will, if this can be done
without undue delay or inconvenience, obtain the signature of counsel to the
draft decree.
68
(ii) The decree shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the Section 16.
appeal, and by what parties and in what proportions the same, and the
Rules-Proce
costs incurred in the Courts below, shall be paid . dure in Chief
(iii) In pauper appeals the provisions of section 411 of the Code of Court.
Civil Procedure shall be observed.
The heading of the decree should run

·
Appeal in formá pauperis by’—
In the body should be inserted :
The following Court fee costs are recoverable by Government as a

first charge upon the subject-matter, under section 411 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.'
XXIII . The decree shall be signed by the Judge or Judges who con
curred in the judgment on which it is based , but shall not require the
signature of any Judge who is no longer attached to the Court when it is
approved ; and, if no such Judge then continues to be attached to the
Court, it shall be signed by the Registrar after he has satisfied himself that
it is in accordance with the Judgment, and satisfies the requirements of
these rules.
XXIV. No decree shall be drawn up in cases in which the decision of

the lower Court is confirmed under section 551 of the Code of Civil Procedure .
XXV. When a copy of a decree is forwarded to a lower Court under

section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it shall be accompanied by a
translation thereof in Urdu , except when the language of the parties is
English and the Judge of the lower Court is acquainted with that language.
The translation shall be signed by the person who makes it, and shall be
certified by him and also by the Head Translator to be a true and correct
translation, and shall be countersigned by the Deputy Registrar.
XXVI, (i) When the draft of any decree or order has been ordered
to be settled in the presence of the parties, or when none of the Judges who
concurred in the judgment continues attached to the Court, and the
Registrar thinks it necessary that it should be so settled, the Registrar
shall, by notice in writing, which shall be accompanied by copies of the
draft prepared for approval, appoint a time for settling the same, and the
parties or their pleaders must attend such appointment and produce before
the Registrar such documents as may be necessary to enable him to settle
the draft. The notice will be sent from the Registrar's office to the
pleaders, if any, of the parties, with a receipt book, in which shall be
obtained the signatures of the pleaders with whom the notice is left.
(ii) The notice shall be served on the parties who have appeared in
person by the party who has the carriage of the decree or order. When
so served, the original notice, with a Memorandum endorsed thereon of the
service of a copy thereof, signed by the party by whom such service was
made, must be delivered to the Registrar, who may, if not satified that
service has been duly made, require such service to be verified by affidavit.
XXVII. If any party fails to attend the Registrar's appointment for
settling the draft of a decree or order, or fails to produce any documents
called for by the Registrar, the Registrar may proceed to settle such draft
69
Section 17-18. in his absence or without the production of the documents aforesaid or may
mention the matter to the Court.
XXVIII . The Registrar may adjourn any appointment for settling

the draft of any decree or order to such time as he may think fit, and the
parties who attend the appointment shall be bound to attend the adjourned
appointment without further notice.
XXIX . If any party is dissatisfied with any decree or order as settled

by the Registrar, and intends to mention the matter to the Court, the
Registrar, if informed of such intention, shall not proceed to complete the
decree without allowing such party sufficient time to apply to the Court.
The application must be made by motion or notice to the parties who
appeared at the hearing.
XXX.-When a variation is made by the Court in a draft settled by

the Registrar, such variation shall be embodied in the decree or order, and
except when the costs of the application are ordered to be paid, no fresh
order need be drawn ap.
CHAPTER III.
THE SUBORDINATE CIVIL COURTS.
Classes of Courts.
17. Besides the Chief Court, the Courts of

Small Causes established under the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and the Courts
established under any other enactment for the
time being in force, there shall be the following
classes of Civil Courts ( namely) :
(a) the Divisional Court ;
(b) the Court of the District Judge ;
(c) the Court of the Subordinate Judge ;
(d) the Court of the Munsif.
Territorial Divisions.
18. (1) For the purposes of this Act the Local

Government shall divide the territories under its
administration into Civil divisions , and each Civil
Division into Civil districts .
(2) The Local Government may alter the

limits or the number of these divisions and dis
tricts.
70
1884.1 PUNJAB COURTS .
Schedule of limits and number of Civil Divisions.

Section 18.
1 2 3 1
Civil Division, Ordinary place of Civil Districts.

sitting.
Delhi.
1 Delhi ... Delhi ... Gurgaon.
Rohtak.
:
Karnal.
Umballa.
2 Umballa ... Umballa Simla.
Ludhiana.
3 Jullundher ... Jullundher ... Jullundher.
Hoshiarpur ... ... Hoshiarpur.

4 Hoshiarpur Kangra As constituted by No
tification No. 367,
dated 30th March
5 Kullu 8. ... Dharmsala ... Kullu 1886.
Ferozepore .
6 Ferozepore ... Ferozepore ...
Hissar.
Amritsar.
7 Amritsar ... Amritsar ...
Gurdaspore.
Sialkot.
8 Sialkot ... Sialkot ... ...
{ Gujranwala.
9 Lahore ... Lahore ... ... Lahore.
Mooltan.
10 Mooltan Mooltan Jhang .
... ...
Montgomery.
Muzaffargarh .
11 Rawalpindi ... Rawalpindi ... Rawalpindi.
Jhelum.
12 Jhelum ... Jhelum ... Gujrat.
Shahpur.
Dera Ghazi Khan.

13 Derajat ... Dera Ismail Khan. Dera Ismail Khan.
Bannu.
Peshawar.
14 Peshawar ... Peshawar ... Hazara.
Kohat.
71
DIVISIONAL AND DISTRICT COURTS .
Sections 19-23,
19. ( 1 ) The Local Government shall appoint as
many persons as it thinks necessary to be Division
al Judges and shall for each Civil division establish
a Divisional Court consisting of one or more such
Judges .
A Divisional Court has been established for each of the Civil Divisions
mentioned supra, and the Lieutenant- Governor has declared that the Divisional
Court so established shall consist of one Judge.
(2) The Local Government may, where a Divi

sional Court consists of more than one Judge, by
general rule or special order determine which of
them shall be deemed to be the senior .
20. The Local Government shall appoint as

many persons as it thinks necessary to be District
Judges and shall post one such person to each
district as District Judge of that district .
Provided that the same person may, if the
Local Government thinks fit, be appointed to be
District Judge of two or more districts .
21. The Chief Court may, subject to the provi

sions of this Act and any other enactment for the
time being in force, make rules to provide for the
exercise of any of the powers of a Divisional Court
consisting of more than one Judge by one or more
Judges of the Court.
When the Divisional Courts consisted of more than one Judge, the Chief
Court directed that the powers conferred by the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879,
should be exercisable by a single Judge.
Provided that no decree, decision, or order of

any Court, not being an order within the meaning
of the Code of Civil Procedure , shall be reversed
or modified by a single Judge of a Divisional Court
consisting of more than one Judge.

enactment for the time being in force , the Division
al Court and the Court of the District Judge shall
have jurisdiction in original Civil suits without
limit as regards the value .
་
enactment for the time being in force, the Court of
the District Judge shall be deemed to be the Dis
trict Court or principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction in the district .
72
-1884.1 PUNJAB COURTS.
provided that
(a) for the purposes ofthe Indian Divorce Act, Section 24 & 25
the Divisional Court shall be deemed to
be the District Court for all districts com
prised in the division ; and
(b) the Local Government may direct that

the Divisional Court shall for any other
purpose be deemed to be the District
Court or principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction for any district comprised in
the division .
(1) Under the Legal Practitioners ' Act, the Land Acquisition Act, the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act ss . 24 and 28, the Code of Civil Procedure,
section 589 , Proviso clause (a) and s. 646 B, and the Succession Certificate Act ,
S the Divisional Courts have been declared to be the District Courts for the districts
comprised therein. See Rules and orders of Chief Court, pp . 88 and 90 .
1
(2) Appeals from all orders under s. 7 of the Succession Certificate Act,
whether passed by a District Judge or a Subordinate Judge lie to the Divisional
Court and not to the Chief Court. No. 124 P. R. 90.
SUBORDINATE JUDGES AND MUNSIFS .
24. The Local Government may appoint as

many persons as it thinks necessary to be Sub
ordinate Judges.
25. (1) The Local Government may fix the num

ber of Munsifs to be appointed, and, when there
is any vacancy in that number, the Chief Court may
subject to the rules (ifany) made under sub- section
(2), appoint such person to the same as it thinks
fit.
The number of substantive Munsifs is 84. As many may be appointed as
are necessary, provided that the number of persons executing the functions of
Munsif shall not at any one time exceed 84. See Rules and Orders, p . 87.
(3 ). The Chief Court may, with the previous
sanction of the Local Government, make rules as
to the qualifications of persons to be appointed
Munsifs .
GENERAL ROLES .
I. Two registers of candidates for the office of Munsif will be kept

in the Chief Court office ; namely,
A-a register of candidates who are eligible for appointment with

out passing the competitive examination hereinafter pre
scribed ;
B-a register of candidates who are only eligible for appointment

after passing the competitive examination above mentioned.
73
317
83
550
(Section 25. II. On the occurrence of a vacancy, whether permanent or temporary
in the office of Munsif, the District Judge of the district, in which the
Rules relating vacancy occurs, shall send immediate intimation of the fact, through the
to Munsifs.
*
Divisional Judge, to the Chief Court. Permanent vacancies will ordinarily
å
be filled up alternately from Register A, and the candidates selected by
I
competition from Register B. Temporary vacancies will ordinarily be filled
I
up from Register A, and in appointing to such vacancies, the recommen
dations of the local authorities will be duly considered.
III. The admission of candidates to Register A, and the appointment

of such candidates, will be regulated by the rules contained in Schedule A
annexed to these rules. The admission of candidates to Register B, and the
examination and appointment of such candidates, will be regulated by the
rules contained in Schedule B annexed to these rules .
IV. Every candidate for the office of Munsif admitted to Register A,

and every candidate for the office of Munsif admitted to Register B who
has qualified for an appointment by passing the competitive examination
prescribed in the rules contained in Schedule B, shall be required to pass
the Departmental Examination hereinafter prescribed for Munsifs :
Provided that no candidate who has passed the Departmental Exami

nation prescribed for Munsifs and Tahsildars under the rules heretofore
in force, or the Licentiate-in-Law Examination of the Punjab University,
shall be required to pass the Departmental Examination prescribed by
these rules .
Provided, further, that the Chief Court may, for any sufficient reason
exempt any candidate from passing the Departmental Examination pre
scribed by these rules.
V. Subject to the modifications hereinafter specified, the Depart
mental examination for candidates for the office of Munsif shall be the
same as prescribed for Assistant and Extra Assistant Commissioner by the
lower Standard in Groups A and B ; namely :
(Criminal Law First paper 120
Subject I. Criminal Law : Second paper (excluding
questions on the Jail Manual set by the
Group A. ... 120
Subject II. Inspector-General of Prisons )
Civil Law, First paper ... ... 120
Ditto ; Second paper ... ... ... 120
480
Revenue Law, First paper ... 120
Revenue Law, Second paper (excluding
Group B. Subject III. the viva voce examination in Settlement
Reports . ... ... ... ... 120
240
A candidate will be held to have passed the examination in either
group if he obtains not less than forty out of the one hundred and twenty
marks allotted to each paper set at the examination in such group, and
not less than one-half of the total maximum number of marks allotted
to such group. Candidates qualifying under this rule who obtain more
than two-thirds of the total maximum number of marks allotted to either
74
1984.] PUNJAB COUrts .
group, will be shown as having passed in such group with credit .' A Section 25.
candidate may write his answer in either the English or the Urdu language,
Rules relatin
but whichever language is selected must be used throughout the examina to Munsifs.
tion. Candidates whose mother-tongue is not English, but who write their
answers in that language, and show a competent knowledge thereof, may,
in the discretion of the examiners , be awarded a number of extra marks,
not exceeding five, for each paper set, for proficiency in English.
Note. The books , &c. out of which questions will be set the same as
those prescribed for the Departmenal Examination of Assistant and Extra
Assistant Commissioners .
VI. The answers of candidates will be examined and marks will be
awarded by examiners appointed by the Chief Court. Such examiners
will submit their awards of marks to the Registrar of the Chief Court, who
will lay them before the said Court. The final decision as to the passing of
candidates will rest with the Chief Court .
VII. Candidates for the office of Munsif, who may be required to
appear at the Departmental Examination prescribed by these rules, will be
admitted to the Departmental Examination prescribed for Assistant and
Extra Assistant Commissioners held in the month of October in each year.
VIII. The Secretary of the Central Committee, appointed under the
rules for the Departmental Examination of Assistant and Extra Assistant
Commissioners, will , on the completion of each day's examination, transmit
the answer papers of candidates appearing under these rules to the Regis
trar of the Chief Court, who will transmit them to the examiners appointed
by the Chief Court, for the purpose of having marks awarded .
SCHEDULE A.
Rules for the admission ofcandidates to Register A, and for the
appointment of such candidates to be Munsifs.
1. The number of candidates admissible to Register A, in each Civil
Division will be intimated to Divisional Judges by the Chief Court from
time to time as occasion may require.*
2. The following persons only will ordinarily be deemed eligible for
admission to Register A ; namely,
(a) othcials who appear to be fitted for the office ;
(b) members of families who have rendered good service to the
Government ;
(c) persons of good social position and influence in the country.
3. When a District Judge is satisfied that an official or other person
described in the preceding rule is in all respects qualified for admission to
Register A, he shall cause his name to be entered in a Register to be
maintained by him for that purpose. An official in any department under
Government may be recommended by the head of the office to the District
Judge for entry in the District Register, but it will rest with the District
Judge to accept or reject the recommendation.
4. District Judges should submit to their respective Divisional Judges
between the first and fifteenth of September in each year, the nomination
rolls of the candidates whom they desire to recommend to fill any perma
nent vacancies which may have occurred during the preceding year in the
list of candidates admitted to Register A for the division to which their
districts are attached, or to complete the Divisional list where the sanction
ed number has not been reached. The rolls must be prepared in the form
The number of candidates at present allowed to each Civil Division is given at the end
of these rules. See P. 78 infra.
75
1
Section 14.
A annexed to these rules, and should be accompanied by certified copies
of the certificates to character and as to his educational qualifications
Rules relating
to Munsifs. produced by each candidate . In the appropriate column of the roll, the
qualifications of the candidate should be fully stated, especially as regards
education , ability, character and social standing . The District Judge
should also specify the order in which he desires to recommend the
candidates whose rolls are submitted.
With these rolls should be submitted a list in the form B. annexed
to these rules , of candidates admitted to Register A , who have from any
cause ceased to be available for appointment during the previous year, or
who are liable to be removed from the Register of Accepted Candidates
under rule 8 of this schedule. In the case of these last, the District Judge's
recommendations should be recorded in the third column of the list.
6. On receipt of the nominations of the District Judges of his Division,
the Divisional Judge should , not later than the first day of October in each
year, forward to the Chief Court , with his own remarks duly recorded , the
rolls of such of the candidates as he desires to recommend for acceptance,
with the rolls of any additional candidates, not exceeding two in number,
of whose qualifications he has himself had opportunities of forming an
opinion provided that the total number of candidates recommended must
not exceed twice the number of Divisional vacancies, and that, in making
his selection from nominations made by the District Judge, the Divisional
Judge should specify the order in which he desires to recommend the
selected candidates.
Note.- 1. Divisional Judges will be guided in acting under this rule by

the scale of candidates prescribed for the purpose under rule 1 of the schedule.
2. The list referred to in rule 5 should be forwarded in the same cover as
the nominations, the Divisional Judge's recommendations being recorded , when
necessary, in the fourth column of the list.
7. The nomination rolls received from Divisional Judges will be laid
before the Chief Court. When orders have been passed thereon , the name
of each accepted candidate will be eutered in Register A , and intimation
that this has been done will be given to the Divisional Judge concerned,
who will cause the name of such candidate to be registered in his office, with
reference to the number and date of the Chief Court's letter of acceptance.
The rolls and certificates of rejected candidates will either be retained in
the Chief Court office or returned , accordingly as it is intended that the
rejection is to be regarded as final, or that the candidate may be again re
commended in a subsequent year.
8. Every candidate admitted to Register A will be eligible for an
appointment in any district in the Province so long as his name remains
on the Register. The names of candidates will ordinarily be retained on
Register A for five years only, and will then be removed, unless for any
sufficient reason the Chief Court thinks fit to retain the name of any
candidate on the Register for such further period as shall be specified in
its order for such retention .
Provided that the name of any candidate may be removed at any
time for any cause which may appear sufficient to the said Court ; and that
the name of any candidate not holding office under Government shall be
removed on his attaining the age of thirty years.
9. Every candidate admitted to Register A will unless he has already
qualified in this respect, or has been exempted , or is exempt under the
provisos to rule IV of the general rules, be expected to present himself at
76
Section 25.
the first Departmental Examination prescribed by rule V (subject to Rule
VII) of the general rules, held after his acceptance ; and , if he fails to
pass in both groups of subjects prescribed for the examination at that Rules relating
to Munsifs.
examination, or the one next following will be liable to have his name re
moved from Register A. As the result of each examination is published .
Divisional Judges will report the names of candidates who are liable to re
moval under this rule, and on receipt of these reports final orders will be
passed by the Chief Court on each case.
10. (i) No candidate on Register A will be given a permanent appoint
ment, and, ordinarily, no such candidate will be appointed to officiate as a
Munsif, unless and until he has complied with the requirements of rule IV
of the general rules .
(ii) Every candidate on Register A who is appointed to a permanent
vacancy will hold his appointment on probation for one year, at the end of
which period his fitness for confirmation in his appointment will be report
ed by the Divisional and District Judges under whom he has served , provid
ed that if the fitness of the candidate has been satisfactorily established
during the tenure of officiating appointments, the Chief Court may, in its
discretion, dispense with the further period of probation here prescribed .
11. The list of candidates admitted to Register A will be revised
annually in the Chief Court Office, and copies of the revised list will be
supplied to Divisional and District Judges for information and guidance .
FORM A.
Nomination roll of who is recommended for admission to Register A, as

being a person qualified for the office of Munsif.
qualifications
Educational
knowledge
generally
(RULE 4 OF SCHEDULE A. )
English
Parentage
residence
)owhat
Examinations
theany
nd
PREVIOUS OFFICE HELD

family
(iff
ofesignation
place
;a
UNDER BRITISH GOV

and
rtransfer
of
ERNMENT (IF ANY ) .

passed
which
.
candidate
,Date
has
Divisional
he
re
or
Opinion
.
Name
caste
Judge
appointment
Opinion
District
and
Judge
of
candidate
possesses
of
.
.
of
.
Date
.of
.
birth
Date
Post
.pa
an dy
of
moval
.
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
Note. Any examination of the Educational Department, and any other official or Uni
versity examination which the candidate may have passed , should be entered in column 8
with the date of passing.
77
PUNJAB COURTS . [[ACT XVIII
Section 14. FORM B.

Statement showing the names of candidates of the -District who have
Rules relating
to Munsifs. ceased to be available for Munsif-ships during the year ending 31st
August 189 " or who have been five years or more
on Register A.
(RULES 5 , 8 AND 9 OF SCHEDULE A ) .
Reason for removing

his name from Register Recommendation of Recommendation of
Name of Candidate. A of Accepted Caudi
dates for the office of the District Judge. the Divisional Judge.
Munsif.
1 2 3 4
With reference to Rules 1 and 6 Schedule A, the Judges have pre

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
scribed the following Divisional and District scales of candidates admitted

to Register A :
Divisional Scale. Distriet Scale.

43
Delhi ... Delhi 1 , Gurgaon 1, Rohtak 1 , and Karnal 1 .

Amballa ... Amballa 2, Ludhiana 1 , Simla Nil.
Jullundhur ... ... 1 Jullundur.
Hoshiarpur ... 2 Hoshiarpur, 1 , Kangra 1.
Firozepore *** ... 2 Firozepur 1, Hissar 1.
Amritsar ... ... Amritsar 2, Gurdaspur 1 .
223
Sialkot... 003 ... Sialkot 1 , Gujranwala 1 .

Lahore... ... Lahore 2.
Mooltan Mooltan 1 , Jhang 1 , Montgomery 1 , Muzaffar
223
garh Nil.
⠀⠀⠀
Jheluin ... 2 Jhelum 1, Gujrat 1.

Rawalpindi ... ... ... Rawalpindi 1. Shahpur 1.
Derajat ... ... ... ... Dera Ismail Khan 1, Dera Ghazi Khan 1,
Bannu 1.
Peshawar ... ... ... 2 Peshawar 1, Hazara 1 , Kohat Nil.
TOTAL 31
:
Add Chief Court list ...

:
GRAND TOAL ... 35

:
SCHEDULE B.
Rules for the admission of Candidates to Register B and for the examinaiton and
appointment of such candidates.
1. In the office of every Divisional Judge shall be kept a register of
candidates whom the Divisional Judge desires to recommend for admission
to Register B.
78
1884.] PUNJAB COUrts.
2. The persons eligible for nomination to Register B are natives of Section 25.
India, as defined in 33 Victoria, Chapter 3, section 6, who possess the
following qualifications ; namely : Rules relating
to Munsifs.
Every such person must
(a) be a native of, or domiciled in the Punjab, or the territories
adjacent thereto, and be not under twenty, nor over twenty
eight years of age last birth-day ;
( ) have graduated in Arts, Law or Oriental Learning at one ofthe
recognized Universities in British India, or have passed the
examination for the diploma of Licentiate-in-Law of the Punjab
University, or give satisfactory evidence that his educational
attainments are not inferior to those required for one of these
tests ;
(c) furnish the certificate of physical fitness required by Article 60 ,
Part II, Chapter III , of the Civil Service Regulations ;
(d) give satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and gentle
manly bearing ;
(e) if Urdu is not his vernacular, give satisfactory evidence that he
possesses a thorough knowledge of that language .
3. Recommendations should be submitted to the Chief Court yearly,
in the month of June, by Divisional Judges. Recommendations should be .
made in the form A annexed to these rules , and should be accompanied by
certified copies of the certificates to character and as to his educational
qualifications produced by each candidate. In the case of candidates who
have not graduated at any University, or passed the examination mention
ed in clause (b) of the preceding rule, proper evidence should be given that
the candidate possesses the necessary educatio nal attainments .
4. The names of candidates who are accepted by the Chief Court will
be entered in Register B, and a certificate, in the form B annexed to these
rules, will be forwarded to every accepted candidate through the Divisional
Judge who recommended him. Candidates who are not accepted will be
informed through the same channel .
The name of any candidate admitted to Register B under the provisions
of this rule may be removed at any time for any cause which may appear
sufficient to the Chief Court .
5. An estimate will be made every year in the month of July, and

published in the issues of the Punjab Government Gazette during the
month of August, of the number of appointments expected to become avail
able for candidates on Register B in the following calendar year, and these
appointments will be conferred in accordance with the results of a com
petitive examination to be held as hereinafter provided.
6. If the actual number of vacancies in any year falls short of the
number notified, the successful candidates for the notified number of
vacancies will be appointed, without further examination , during the follow
ing year, and the estimate of available vacancies for that year will be
correspondingly reduced . On the other hand, if the actual number of
vacancies exceeds the number notified , the vacancies will either be filled.
up temporarily from Register A and the number added to the estimate for
the following year, or the first of the unsuccessful candidates (provided
that he has duly qualified as required by rule II of this schedule) will be
appointed, as the Chief Court may in each case determine.
79
Section 25.
7. If at any examination a sufficient number of candidates does not
qualify for the estimated number of vacancies, any vacancies which may fall
to Rules relating to Register B in the following year in excess of the number of qualified
Munsifs.
candidates will be filled up permanently from Register A, and not as provid
ed in the preceding rule,
8. A competitive examination will be held annually at Lahore during
the month of September or on some subsequent date to be notified in the
Punjab Government Gazette . Every candidate whose name is on Register
В may, on presentation of the certificate referred to in rule 4 of this sche
dule, and subject to the payment of the examination fee hereinafter prescrib
ed, appear at this examination, provided that he has, on or before the
first of September of such year, signified in writing to the Divisional Judge
of the Division in which he resides, his intention to do so . Any candidate
on Register A who is a Native of India, as defined in 33 Victoria, Chapter
3, Section 6, and who is a Native of, or is domiciled in the Punjab or ter
ritories adjacent thereto , and has passed the Departmental Examination
under the rules hitherto in force, or prescribed by Rule V, of the general
rules, may likewise, with the permission of the Chief Court or of the
Divisional Judge , of the Division to which he belongs, appear as a competi
tor at this examination ; such permission should be applied for before the
1st of August of the year in which the examination is to be held ;
Provided that no candidate on either register shall be permitted to
appear at the Competitive Examination more than five times.
9. The name of every candidate on Register B who fails to gain an
appointment at the first examination held after he attains the age of 28
years, and the name of every candidate on Register B who shall have
appeared at the examination on five occasions without gaining an appoint
ment will be removed from the Register.
10. The Competitive Examination will be held in the following sub
jects, namely :
SUBJECTS.
Morning ... Composition. A subject for an essay

will be prescribed at the time of the
First day examination.
Afternoon ... History of India.

Morning ... Civil Procedure Code and Law of
Evidence.
Second day ..Afternoon

... ... The Court Fees Act ; the Contract Act,
the General Stamp Act ; the Specific
Relief Act ; the Registration Act ;
and the Limitation Act.
Morning ... Mathematics, Arithmetic, Algebra
and Euclid,
Third day ... Afternoon ... Candidates who answer in English
will have their knowledge of Urdu
tested.
80
I 1984. ] PUNJAB COURts .
it Section 25.
It shall be competent to the Chief Court to make from time to time
11 such alterations in the subjects prescribed in this rule as it may deem fit.
1 Rules relating
A candidate may write his answers in either the English or the Urdu to Munsifs.
language, but whichever language is selected, must be used throughout
the examination . Three hours will be allowed for each paper, and each
3 paper will carry a maximum of one-hundred marks. Extra marks, not
8
exceeding ten in each paper, will be awarded to candidates who answer in
English and show a competent knowledge of that language . Candidates
who answer in English will be required to show that they possess a compe
tent knowledge of Urdu by reading a petition written in that language and
translating a judgment from English into Urdu .
11. No candidate will be held to have qualified for an appointment

unless he obtains three- fifths of the aggregate marks assigned for the
whole examination and two-fifths of the marks assigned to each subject .
For the purposes of this rule, the two papers in Law will be deemed to
constitute one subject . The qualified candidates who obtain the highest
aggregate of marks will, up to the number of notified vacancies, be deemed
to be successful candidates . Successful candidates will be appointed to
vacancies in the order of merit in which they pass .
12. Examiners will be appointed by the Senior Judge of the Chief

Court inthe month of August or September in each year.
13. Every candidate qualified for admission to any examination held

under these rules, and intending to appear thereat, shall pay to the Regis
trar, on or before the first of September preceding the holding of such ex
amination, an examination fee of Rs . 20.
14. The proceeds of examination fees will be expended, under the

orders of the Senior Judge of the Chief Court, in meeting the cost of
conducting the examination and remunerating the Examiners .
15. Every Munsif appointed from Register B will hold his appoint
ment on probation for two years, within which period he will be required
to pass the prescribed Departmental Examination, unless he has already
qualified in this respect, or has been exempted therefrom, or has passed
the Licentiate-in-Law Examination of the Punjab University. Failure to
pass the Departmental Examination (in cases in which this is required )
within the prescribed period will be held to disqualify the probationer for
confirmation, and no probationer will be confirmed if it appear that he is,
from any other cause, unfit to hold a judicial appointment. Before a
probationer is confirmed , reports as to his fitness will be called for from the
Divisional Judges and District Judges under whom he has served . If a
probationer fails to obtain confirmation, of his appointment under the
provisions of this rule, he may be removed from his appointment by the
Chief Court .
81
9
FORM A,
0
Section 26. Nomination roll of a person recommended for admission to Register
appointment
B, as a Competitive Candidate for the office of Munsif.
occupation
Parentage
.knowledge
examina
domicile
obtained
Present
educated
(Rule 3 of Schedule B.)
.degrees
parents
passed
Where
English
Extent
tions
hat
and
or
,r
of
ion Judge
,w
of
.
Opinion
District
Judge
,
place
birth
Date
of
and
Opinsion
.
of
.
Divi
Name and caste of can
of
didate.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FORM B
Certificate of admission to Register B.
(Rule 4 of Schedule B.).
In the Chief Court of the Punjab..
Lahore , the -189
This is to certify that. , son of

caste , age
has been admitted to Register B of candidates for the office of Munsif and
that he is entitled to appear at any examination held for the selection of
Munsifs by competiton up to and during the year 189 , provided that he
may not appear more than five times in all .
By order of the Chief Court,

REGISTRAR,
Chief Court, Punjab.
26. (1) The jurisdiction to be exercised in

original Civil suits as regards the value by any
person appointed to be a Subordinate Judge or
Munsif shall, in the case of a Subordinate Judge,
be determined by the Local Government, and , in
the case of a Munsif, by the Chief Court, either
by including him in a class or grade or otherwise
as it thinks fit.
82
1884.J PUNJAB COUrts .
(2 ). The jurisdiction in the case of a Subordi- Section 27.

nate Judge may be without limit, but in the case
of a Munsif shall not extend to suits the value of
which exceeds one thousand rupees.
A suit valued at Rs . 950 was brought in the Munsif's Court to recover

possession of certain lands. The plaint prayed that mesne profits from date of
suit to recovery of possession, as might be ascertained in execution of decree,
should be awarded to the plaintiff. The Munsif gave a decree in accordance with
the prayer of the plaint. The plaintiff then asked that the mesne pr fits
might be ascertained and in his petition he roughly estimated them at Rs. 1,595.
Thereupon it was held both by the Munsif and on appeal by the District Judge,
that the Munsif had no jurisdiction, as he could not give adecree for more than
Rs . 1,000 . Held on appeal to the High Court, that the Munsif had jurisdiction
to ascertain the mesne profits, and to give effect to the order made in his decree
I. L. R. XXI C. 550.
Where in a suit instituted in a Small Cause Court, the sum which the
plaint alleged to be due to the plaintiff exceeded the jurisdiction of the Court,
but was reduced to the amount claimed , which was within jurisdiction, by setting
off, without defendant's consent, a sum due to plaiutiff, held that the Court.
had no jurisdiction - 6 M. L. J 375.
In exercise of the powers vested in the Local Government by this section

the Hon'ble the Lieutenant-Governor is pleased to make two classes of Sabordi
nate Judges in respect of the jurisdiction to be exercised by them ; namely :
First Class. Subordinate Judges exercising jurisdiction without limit as

to the value of tire case.
Second Class.- Subordinate Judges exercising jurisdiction in cases, the

value of which does not exceed five thousand rupees.
2. When any Subordinate Judge is appointed to either of the classes con

stituted by this notification, he shall exercise the jurisdiction hereinbefore defined
for the class to which he is appointed , within the local limits of the Civil District.
to which he may be posted from time to time. See Rules and Orders page 87.
Munsifs have been divided into three classes . The jurisdiction to be exercis
:
ed in original suits as regards the value thereof is limited as follows :
First Class ... ... ... ... ... ... 1,000

Second Class ... ... ... ... ... ... 500
Third Class ... ... ... ... ... 100
See Rules page 90.
27. (1) The local limits of the jurisdiction of

a Subordinate Judge shall be such as the Local
Government may define.
( 2) The local limits of the jurisdiction of a
Munsif shall be such as the Chief Court may define.
( 3) . When the Local Government
Government posts a
Subordinate Judge, or the Chief Court posts a
Munsif, to a district, the local limits of the dis
trict shall , in the absence of any direction to the
83.
Sections 28-30, contrary , be deemed to be the local limits of his

jurisdiction .
28. (1 ) The Local Government may confer

on any person all or any of the powers conferrable
under this Act on a Subordinate Judge or Munsif
with respect to particular classes of cases, or with
respect to cases generally in any local area, and
withdraw, or suspend the exercise of, any powers
so conferred.
(2 ) The Local Government may direct any

uneven number of persons invested with powers
of the same description and exercisable within
the same local area under this section to sit to
gether as a bench ; and those powers shall , while
the direction remains in force, be exercised by the
bench so constituted , and not otherwise .
(3 ) . The decision of the majority of the mem

bers of a bench constituted under this section
shall be deemed to be the decision of the bench.
(4) . Persons on whom powers are conferred

under this section shall be called special Judges ,
and such persons and the benches constituted
under this section shall be deemed , for the purpos
A
es ofthis Act , to be Subordinate Judges or Munsifs ,
as the Local Government may direct .
Powers of a Munsif of the third class have been conferred upon every Tahsil
dar ex officio for the time being within the limits of the Civil District to which he
may, from time to time, be posted.
29. [Transfer to Subordinate Judge or Munsifs

of proceedings under Acts XL of 1858, XXVII of
1860 , or IX of 1861 pending before District Court. ]
Repealed by Acts VII of 1889 and VIII of 1890 .
30. The Local Government may confer, within

such local limits as it thinks fit, upon any District
Judge, Subordinate Judge or Munsif the jurisdic
tion of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under
the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act , 1887, for
the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts up to
such value, not exceeding five hundred rupees , as
it thinks fit, and may withdraw any jurisdiction
so conferred .
84
1884.] PUNJAB COURTS.
Sections 31-35.
Suspension and Removal.
31. (1) Any Divisional Judge , District Judge

or Subordinate Judge may be suspended or remov
ed from office by the Local Government.
(2 ) Any Munsif may, subject to the control of

the Local Government, be suspended or removed
from office by the Chief Court.
Valuation of Suits .
32. Repealed by Act VII of 1887, section 10.
Administrative Control.
33. (1) Subject to the general superintendence

and control of the Chief Court, every Divisional
Court shall control all other Civil Courts in the
division.
(2). Subject as aforesaid and to the control of

Divisional Court , every District Court shall control
all other Civil Courts in the district.
A superior Court cannot, however, in supervising, suggest matters to the

lower Court or alter its record . Weekly notes for 1892, page 57,
34. ( 1 ) Every Divisional Court may exercise ,

as regards the Courts under its control, the same
powers of withdrawal, trial and transfer, as are
conferred by section 25 of the Code of Civil Proce
dure on a District Court.
(2). The Court trying any suit withdrawn

under this section from a Court of Small Causes
shall, for the purposes ofthe suit , be deemed to be a
Court of Small Causes .
35. Notwithstanding anything contained in

the Code of Civil Procedure, every Divisional Court
and District Court may, by written order, direct
that any civil business cognizable by it and the
Courts under its control shall be distributed
among those Courts in such manner as it thinks fit.
Provided that no direction issued under this

section shall empower any Court to exercise any
powers or deal with any business beyond the lim
its of its proper jurisdiction.
85
16
OPGU
PUNJAB COUrts. [ACT XVIII
Sections 36-87. NOTES.
(i).- By an order relating to the distribution of Civil business within a

district, an officer competent to hear cases within the local limits of
the district was directed to hear cases arising in a particular part of
the district only. Held that he was competent, notwithstanding this
direction, to hear cases arising in the district. The object of such
direction is not to restrict the jurisdiction of the Courts, but to re
gulate the distribution of business between several Courts having
jurisdiction. No. 71 P. R. 85.
(ii).-A Court to which a decree has been sent for execution under the
powers conferred by section 35 can, in execution, pass orders in re
gaid to property in excess of the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction
as a Court of original jurisdiction , as sections 223 and 230 C. P. C.
show there is no limitation on the powers of an original Court to
execute decrees of any value . No. 31 P. R. 87.
(iii) .—A decree ex-parte was passed by C , a special Judge invested with
the powers of a Muusif in a certain district. On C's transfer, defendant
applied to S, another officer invested with the same powers, to set
aside the decree. This application was rejected on the ground that S
was not C's successor. Held that the order was wrong, that the
Court of the Munsif continued to exist notwithstanding C's transfer,
that the application was made to the Court, and could be dealt with
by any officer directed to do so under the rules for the distribution
of business. 158 P. R. 90.
36. ( 1) The Ministerial Officers of the Divi

sional and District Courts and Courts of Small
Causes shall be appointed, and may be suspended,
and dismissed by the Judges of those Courts
respectively .
( 2). The Ministerial Officers of all Courts con
trolled by a District Court, other than Courts of
Small Causes , shall be appointed, and may be
suspended and dismissed by the District Court.
(3). Every appointment under this section

shall be subject to such rules as the Local Govern
ment prescribes in this behalf, and , in dealing with
any matter under this section, a District Court or
a Judge of a Court of Small Causes shall act subject
to the control of the Divisional Court.
37. ( 1 ). A Divisional or District Court or any

Court under the control of a District Court may
fine , in an amount not exceeding one month's sa
lary , any Ministeral Officer ofthe Court for miscon
duct or neglect in the performance of his duties .
(2) . The District Court, subject to the general
control of the Divisional Court, may, on appeal or
otherwise, reverse or modify an order made under
86
sub-section (1) by any Court under its control other than a Sections 38-39,
Court of Small Causes, and may of its own motion fine up to
18 the amount of one month's salary any Ministerial Officer of
any Court under its control other than a Court of Small
Causes .
38. A District Court may, with the previous sanction of
the Local Government, delegate to any Subordinate Judge in
the district the powers conferred on a District Court by
sections 33, 35 and 36 of this Act, and section 25 of the Code
ofCivil Procedure, to be exercised by the Subordinate Judge
Le in any specified portion of the district subject to the control
J
S
2
&
of the District Court.

70
C.
to CHAPTER IV.
th Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.

90
39 . Save as otherwise provided by any enactment for the
et
time being in force appeals from decrees of Courts exercising
S ――
original jurisdiction shall lie as follows ; namely :
e
(a)--to the District Judge from a decree of a Munsif in
a Small Cause of value not exceeding five hundred
D rupees, or in an unclassed suit of value not exceed
ing one hundred rupees ;
(b) to the Chief Court from a decree of a Subordinate
Judge or District Judge in any original suit of value
exceeding five thousand rupees, or from a decree of
a Divisional Court in any original suit ; and
S (c) -to the Divisional Court from a decree passed in an
original suit by a Munsif, Subordinate Judge, or
District Judge, and not hereinbefore provided for.
Notes.
e (i). An appeal from the order of a Munsif passed in execution of a decree
in a suit other than a Small Cause, which order falls within the definition of
a decree in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, lies to the Divisional Court,
1 and not to the Court of the District Judge. No. 4 P. R. 87 .
(ii) . Where the suit was of the nature of Small Causes and under Rs. 500
in value, but a compromise was made between the parties which included a
1
• mortgage by way of lekha mukhi from defendant to plaintiff of certain lands
for the payment of the sum acknowledged to be due, and a decree was passed in
i accordance with the compromise under Section 375, C. P. C. Held that the
appeal from an order passed in execution proceedings, lay to the District Court,
the nature and value of the suit rather than that of the decree determining the
Court of appeal. No. 55 P. R. 87.
( i ). A Munsif having returned a plaint for presentation in the Small
Cause Court, the District Judge on appeal reversed the Munsif's order, and
directed him to receive the plaint and try the suit. Thereupon the Munsif hold.
ing that, if the case was not a Small Cause, the District Judge had no jurisdic
tion to hear the appeal, and ignoring the order of the District Judge that he
should receive the plaint and try the suit, again returned the plaint to the
plaintiff. Held that the last order was clearly erroneous . As soon as the Munsif
had decided that the plaint presented was a plaint in a suit of a nature cognizable
by a Small Cause Court, that decision determined the course of appeal in the suit
for the purpose of contesting the Munsif's order, and the District Judge un
87
Section 39.
doubtedly had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, such jurisdiction not depending
upon the decision he might afterwards arrive at as to the nature of the case.
No. 36 P. R. 87.
(iv). Where in execution of a decree for Rs. 1,250 payable by instalments,
an Extra Assistant Commissioner having the powers of a Munsif passed an
order which was a " decree" within the definition in Section 2 of the Civil
Procedure Code held that the appeal from such decree lay to the Divisional
Judge. No. 115 P. R. 86.
(v). Where the plaintiff claimed redemption of certain house property from
mortgage on payment of Rs. 43-12, the mortgage-money or such other sum as the
Court might determine, and the Munsif, notwithstanding the defendant's plea
that the mortgage debt amounted to Rs. 884, decreed redemption on payment of
Rs. 63-14-0 held that the appeal from the Munsif's decree lay to the Divisional
Judge and not to the District Judge . The jurisdiction is to be determined with
reference to the claim made which was for redemption on payment of Rs . 43-12-0
or such other sum as the Court might determine, and not to the decision upon the
claim. The suit was not therefore an unclassed suit below Rs. 100 in value .
When once the appeal had been properly instituted in the Divisional Court it
was immaterial that that Court found less than Rs. 100 to be due, and such find
ing did not oust its jurisdiction . The value of the suit was not altered by the
plea of the defendant. No. 63 P. R. 91 and 106 P. R. 95 F. B.
(vi). The plaintiffs sued for mesne profits alleged to have been realized by
a Receiver. For the purposes of Section 50, Civil Procedure Code, the relief
sought was valued approximately at Rs . 2,000 . There was a decree for plaintiffs
for Rs. 3,405 and they appealed for Rs . 1,946 more. Defendants also appealed
against the decree. The appeals were returned by the Divisional Judge on the
ground that the amount involved was over Rs. 5,000. Held that the appeals lay
to the Divisional Court. The value of the original suit was not over Rs . 2,000.
No. 40 P. R. 92.
(vii). No. 86 P. R. 92 is to similar effect. The facts there were : —
The plaintiff sued the defendant for account, valuing the relief sought at Rs.
100, and expressing his willingness to pay the Court fee due upon any sum
decreed in excess of this amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 11
Court Fees Act.
After the defendant had produced the books containing the parties ' accounts
and a Commissioner had examined the same, the plaintiff filed a petition stating
that he appeared to be prima facie entitled to recover a sum over Rs. 12,000, and
praying that the matters might be fully investigated. No amendment of the
plaint was however, asked for or ordered , and the suit eventually resulted in a
decree in the plaintiff's favour for Rs . 2,343 . Plaintiff then appealed for a further
sum of Rs. 1,716 and the defendant for Rs . 2,343. The Divisional Judge returned
the appeals for presentation to the Chief Court. Held that the appeals lay to
the Divisional Judge, as the value of the suit was Rs . 100. No. 86 P. R. 92.
(viii). Plaintiffs valued the relief sought as follows : —

(i) Removal of defendant from office of Mahant ... Rs. 1,000
! 500
(ii) . Declaration of plaintiffs ' right to appoint a successor ,,,
(iii) Enforcement of the provisions of a will 99 1,0 00
or Rs. 2,500 in all.
The District Judge having found, on a preliminary objection raised by the
defendant, that the value of the property attached to the institution in question
was Rs . 2,53,000 , directed the plaintiffs to file additional Court fees, and upon
their refusal to comply with such order rejected the plaint. Plaintiffs appealed
to the Divisional Judge who returned the Memorandum of appeal for presenation
to the Chief Court holding that though he would have had jurisdiction looking
1
88
1884.1 PUNJAB COURts . -
only at the claim as valued in the plaint, his jurisdiction had been taken away by Seotion 40.
the District Judge's decision that the true valuation was Rs . 2,53,000. Held that
this view was untenable. No. 58 P. R. 93.
(ix) Plaintiff sued for return of an ornament, worth Rs. 726, but pawn
ed for Rs. 400, and offered to pay Rs . 502, the amount to which the debt had
run up, and in the alternative asked for a decree for Rs. 224, being the differ
ence between the value of the ornament and the amount of his debt. The suit
was tried by a Munsif of the 2nd class who gave plaintiff a decree for Rs. 211 .
Defendants appealed to the District Judge who held the value of the suit to be
above Rs. 500 ( the limit of the Munsif's powers), quashed the proceedings and
sent the suit for trial to a Munsif of the first class. The latter having dismiss
ed the suit, plaintiff appealed to the Divisional Judge, who refused to hear it on the
ground that the appeal lay to the District Judge, the suit being under Rs. 500
in value.
Held that the order of the Divisional Judge was right, and that the orders
of the District Judge refusing to entertain the appeal and of the Munsif of the
first class dismissing the suit must be set aside. 62 P. R. 96 .
(x) Plaintiffs sued for pre-emption of reversionary rights in a half share
of certain land held by three widows on a life interest, and alleged that though
the deed of sale stated the purehase-money to be Rs . 7,000, only Rs . 2,900 passed.
They, therefore, prayed for a decree on payment of the proper price, and for pur
poses of jurisdiction valued their suit in the plaint at Rs. 3,800, being thirty
times the jama. The first Court found that Rs. 2,900 only passed, but that the
proper market-value of the land was Rs. 7,000. The suit was, however, dis
missed as premature. Held that the appeal lay to the Divisional Court. The
suit being for the acquisition of a contingent interest in land, and not for pos
session or a present interest , the rules framed by the Local Government under
s. 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, were not applicable, and the test of juris
diction was to be furnished by the value set forth in the plaint, 18 P. R. 97.
(xi) When the value of a suit was found by the lower Court to be less
than Rs. 5,000 , and the plaintiff contested that finding and preferred his appeal
to the High Court on the valuation of Rs. 7,500 made in his plaint : Held, that
the words " value of the original suit" did not mean the value as found by the
original Court, and the appeal was rightly preferred to the High Court.
I. L. R. 23 C. 536.
On question of the over valuation being the result of a design to change
the venue of appeal. - See 1 B. L. R. A. C. 97, I. L. R. 8.B. 31-13 A. 320 and
13 M. 277.
40. (1) A further appeal shall lie to the Chief Court in
any of the following cases from an appellate decree of a
Divisional Court on any ground which would be a good ground
of appeal if the decree had been passed in an original suit ;
namely
(a) if the value ofthe suit is one thousand rupees or up
wards , or the decree involves directly some claim to
or question respecting, property of like value ;
( b) in a land- suit, if the Divisional Court consists of a
single Judge and the decree varies or reverses other
wise than as to costs, the decree of the Court below ;
(c) in a land- suit if, in a Divisional Court consisting of
more than one Judge the appeal is heard by two or
more Judges and there is not a majority of those
Judges concurring in the decree of the Divisional
Court confirming, varying, or reversing, otherwise
than as to costs, the decision of the Court below ;
89
PUNJAB COURTS. [ACT XVHÍ -
Section 40. (d) if on the application of any party a Judge ofthe

Divisional Court certifies that there is a question of
law or custom involved , and that the case is, in his
opinion, ofsufficient importance to justify a further
appeal ;
Provided that
(i ) an application under clause ( d ) of this sub- section
shall not be received after the expiration of thirty
days from the date on which the decree of the
Divisional Court is passed unless the applicant sa
tisfies the Judge that he had sufficient cause for not
presenting it within that period ; and
(ii) a further appeal shall not lie in any small cause of
value not amounting to one thousand rupees or up
wards, or in any unclassed suit of value not exceed
ing one hundred rupees .
(2 ) When an application under clause (d) of sub- section
(1) has been refused , an application for revision may, within
thirty days from the date of the refusal, be presented to the
Chief Court, and if the Chief Court is of opinion that a ques
tion oflaw or custom or of general interest is involved and
that the case is of sufficient importance to justify a further
appeal, the Chief Court may deal with the application for re
vision as if it were a further appeal.
Notes.
(1 ) A further appeal lies only from an appellate decree as distinguished

from an order of the Divisional Court . No. 79 P. R. 90.
(2) A further appeal is not competent to persons who were not parties
to the appeal before the Divisional Judge, nor affected in any way by the decree
made by him. No. 123 P. R. 92.
(3) Clause (a) :-This clause is framed upon the model of section 596,
C. P. C., with the notable difference that in"" the latter section the word ' directly
is followed by the words " or indirectly which words do not appear here .
The following decisions bear upon this clause.
(a) A sued for pre-emption of certain property on payment of Rs . 400
the price stated in the deed of sale. The real value of the property sold was
upwards of Rs. 2,000 . The Courts below concurred in decreeing the claim.
The defendant appealed, and a preliminary objection was taken to the hearing
of the appeal on the ground that the value of the suit was below Rs. 1,000.
Held that the appeal lay as the decree involved directly a claim to property
of the value of over Rs. 1,000 . No. 94 P. R. 90. In Civil Appeal No. 600 of
1891 (unpublished ) , a case of pre-emption, where the jama of the land in dispute
was Rs. 5, the value thereof according to the rules under the Suits Valuation
Act being Rs. 150 , for purposes of jurisdiction , but pre-emption had been decreed
in the Court below on payment of Rs . 1,500, the market value, the pre-emptor
appealed for reduction of price to Rs. 500, and claimed that the appeal lay as of
right, as the decree involved directly a question respecting property of over
one thousand rupees. Held that no appeal lay. Civil Appeal No. 94 P. R. 90
was referred to for appellant, but held inapplicable. The Court following Civil
Appeal No. 373 of 1891 (unpublished), and No. 169 P. R. 88 infra held that the
question of consideration was not a question involved directly in the decree.
(b) A contrary view appears to have been taken in No. 29 P. R. 93, where
the facts were as follow :
In a pre-emption suit, of which the value for purposes of jurisdiction was
found to be less than Rs. 1,000 the decree of the first Court, affirmed upon
90
1884.1 PUNJAB COURTS . ·
appeal, was for possession of land on payment of Rs . 2,822, the plaintiff having Section 40... !
claimed it on payment of Rs. 2,500, and the deed of sale showing the price to
be Rs. 4,500, and one ghumao of land held that the decree involved directly some
claim to or question respecting property of the value of Rs . 1,000 or upwards ,
namely, the price to be paid for the land in suit by the plaintiff in his character
of pre-emptor, and that an appeal therefore lay without a certificate.
(c) In 26 P. R. 87 plaintiff sued for the removal of a wall which he alleged
that the defendant had built on his land. Defendant pleaded that plaintiffs
acquiesced in his (defendant's ) erecting a three- storied building supported by
the wall which plaintiff claimed to remove. This plea having been overruled,
plaintiff eventually obtained from the Divisional Court a decree directing the
removal of the wall. The value of the land in suit and the wall taken together
was under Rs. 500 (the money - limit under the Act before its amendment) . It
was contended for the defendant who appealed to the Chief Court that a further
appeal lay in as much as it being impossible to remove the wall without mate
rially disturbing the three- storied building which was bounded by and partly
supported by the wall, and further one of the questions being whether plaintiff
had acquiesced in the building of these rooms, the value of the rest of the house
which was not actually situate on the land claimed should be considered in cal
culating the value of the suit. Held, overruling this contention, that the decree
sought to be appealed did not directly involve any claim to or question respect
ing property exceeding Rs. 500 in value. The word ' directly ' was purposely
inserted for the express object of shutting out the indirect consequences of
decrees . See 7 Mad. L. J. 49.
(d) Plaintiff, alleging himself to be a full proprietor and as such entitled
to share in the offerings of a certain temple, sued the defendant for Rs. 43,
as his share in the offerings for a specified year, and obtained a decree for Rs 42,
it being found that plaintiff was a full proprietor in opposition to the plea of
the defendant that he was only proprietor of his holding. Defendant applied
for revision without a certificate ; Held that, assuming that the plaintiff's
interest as a shareholder in the offerings of the temple was a property exceeding
Rs. 500 in value, the decree which ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 42 to the
plaintiff did not involve directly (and did at most only indirectly involve) a
claim to or question respecting property exceeding Rs. 500 in value. The
Judges remarked " it is not necessary to affirm what cases would fall within this
clause, but we think that a case where the original claim was for less than Rs . 500,
and the decree directed payment of a sum exceeding Rs. 500, by reason of inter
est being added under section 209, C. P. C. , or a claim for land not exceeding
Rs. 500 in value, while the decree gave mesne profits under section 211 , C. P. C.
so as to make the total value decreed exceed Rs. 500 would be cases within
the clause.' No. 96 P. R. 87 .
(e). Plaintiff sued for redemption of a mortgage of certain land alleging

the amount of the mortgage debt to be Rs. 300. Defendant pleaded that the
mortgage debt was Rs. 3,000 . The first Court decided that the land was mortgaged
for Rs. 300, aud gave plaintiff a decree for redemption accordingly, which was
upheld on appeal. Defendant then lodged a further appeal in the Chief Court,
which he desired to maintain as of right, asserting that the value of the suit
exceeded Rs. 500 by reason of his plea, that the mortgage debt was Rs. 3,000 .
Held that the value of the suit was not altered by the plea of the defendant,
whether true or false ; that the value of the suit was only Rs. 300 ; that the
decree for redemption on payment of that sum only involved indirectly, not
directly, a question respecting property exceeding Rs . 500 in value, and therefore
no appeal lay as of right. No. 169 P.R. 88.
(
f). The plaintiffs sued for a declaratory decree that an alienation by a
childless proprietor would not affect their reversionary interests in the land the
subject of the alienation . The alienation challenged purported to be for Rs. 1,300
the value of the land calculated at thirty times the revenue was Rs. 770. Held
91
Section 40, that the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction being less than 1,000, and
both Courts having concurred in decreeing the claim, no further appeal was com
petent in the absence of an application to the Divisional Court under clause (d) .
The suit as brought, though it fell within the description of claim mentioned in
No. 11 of the Rules issued under Part 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, was subject
to the proviso to that Rule, and as the subject of the alienation impugned was land
as specified in s . 3 of the Act, and was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.
770, thirty times the revenue, according to the Rules made under that section ,
it followed from section 4 of the same Act that the value of the claim could not
be held to be in excess of that sum.
Held also, that the lower appellate Court's decree could not be said to involve
directly some claim to, or question respecting property of Rs . 1,000 or upwards
in value. No. 145 P. R. 92 .
g) In a suit for possession of land the value of which under the rules
framed under the Suits Valuation Act was less than Rs . 500, both the lower
Courts concurred in decreeing the claim. The defendants thereupon, without
obtaining a certificate for appeal, appealed to the Chief Court alleging that the
market-value of the land was over Rs. 1000 , and that an appeal lay because the
decree involved directly some claim to, or question respecting, property of that
value.
Held that the decree applied from was a decree in which the claim to, or
question respecting, land was identical with the subject-matter of the suit, and
this subject-matter was excluded from appeal because its value was below
Rs. 1,000 .
Per Plowden, S. J. : -The second branch extends only to decrees in which

the claim or question directly involved in the decree being or relating to proper
ty, is not identieal with, but includes something beyond the claim or question
directly involved in the suit at its commencement. When the claim to, or ques
tion respecting, property directly involved in the decree is part of, or identical
with, the claim to, or question respecting, property involved in the suit, the
value of which does not exceed Rs . 1000, an appeal is by necessary implication
refused under the first branch, and in such case it can be held to be granted
under the second only if a second valuation or a new mode of valuation is per
missible. There certainly seems to be a presumption against the law permitting
one and the same matter being twice valued in the same suit of right, or a
change in the mode of valuation in the course of the suit. 132 P. R. 93.
(h) Plaintiff sued for pre-emption of certain land, the value of which
calculated at thirty times the revenue, was considerably below Rs. 1,000, upon
payment of Rs. 700, and defendants pleaded that Rs. 1,000, the price entered in
the sale-deed, was fixed in good faith, and was not in excess of the true market
value. The suit having been dismissed by both lower Courts, and a certificate
refused by a Divisional Court on the 12th March 1894, plaintiff on the 21st April
1894 filed a further appeal in the Chief Court. Held that under the first
branch of (a) no further appeal lay as of right, the true value of the suit being
less than Rs. 1,000, and the decree which merely dismissed the suit, did not 2
directly any question concerning the price to be paid by the pre-emptor.
3 P. R. 96.
(1) A suit for injunction was valued at Rs. 1,005 for purposes of juris
diction, the object being to secure a further appeal . For the purposes of Court
fee, it was valued at Rs. 130. Under s. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value
of a suit for injunction for the purposes of jurisdiction is the same as for Court
fee, Therefore held that the plaintiff was not justified in valuing his suit for pur
poses of jurisdiction at nearly eight times the amount at which he had valued it
for purposes of Court-fees-and that no appeal lay. 50 P. R. 96.
92 **
(j) Plaintiff sued ut.der s . 77, Registration Act, for a decree directing Section 40
registration of a receipt for Rs. 100 said to have been paid as earnest money of
the price of a house which defendant agreed to sell for Rs. 2,500. No value was
put on the suit in the plaint which was on a Rs. 10 stamp, but in his appeal
plaintiff valued it at Rs 100. Held that the suit did not involve directly any ques
tion respecting property of the value of Rs. 1,000, but was an unclassed suit of
the value of Rs . 100 only. 21 P. R. 95.
(4) Clause d. Instances of Defective Certificates .
(a). An application was made to the Divisional Court stating that there
were several points of law worthy of the attention of the Chief Court. The
following certificate was granted by the Divisional Judge. " Application accepted.
If petitioner desires, let him appeal. " A further appeal made on this certificate
was rejected. No. 24 P. R. 86 .
(b). The certificate merely set forth that there was a question of law involv
ed in the case, without specifying what the point of law was, or whether the case
was of sufficient importance to justify a further appeal. Appeal based thereon
was dismissed . No. 119 P. R. 88.
(c) . The document presented as a certificate merely certified that the case
was of sufficient importance to justify a further appeal but did not certify that
there was 66 a question of law or custom or of general interest involved ." The
appeal was rejected . No. 169 P. R. 88.
(d). In a case where the only question in dispute was whether a certain
marriage had taken place by chadar andazi, the Divisional Judge without consider
ing the evidence dismissed the appeal. He however certified the case as fit for
further appeal on the ground that it involved a point of law, viz. , whether oral
evidence was sufficient to establish such marriage. Held that the question whether
the evidence was legally sufficient did not arise at all, that the only point at issue
was one of fact and that the Divisional Judge was bound to come to a finding on
it. No. 135 P. R. 90.
Question of law -While the proper allocation of the burden of proof in
a particular case may in one sense be a question of law it is rather a question in
cidental to the proceedings in the case between contesting parties than ' involved '
in it. No. 45 P. R. 94.
Held by Frizelle and Reid J.J. in Civil Appeal No. 561 of 1895 (unreported)
in a case where the collaterals impugned a mortgage by a childless proprietor
who alleged that he had made it to defray the expenses of the marriage of
his daughter, that the question of what is reasonable expenditure is a question
of law.
The inference to be drawn from certain documents is a question of
law.-I. L. R. 19 M. 485.
See also No. 47 P. R. 94 where held that the true point on which the case
turns should be seen. It is not enough that a law point is involved.
Provisoes .
(5) In No. 93 P. R. 86, the application for a certificate had been made
after the expiry of the prescribed period, no cause for the delay in applying being
shown, and was consequently rejected . Thereupon the plaintiff applied for revi
sion under s. 622, C. P. C. contending that the order of the Divisional Judge was
final within the meaning of s. 70 Punjab Courts Act, the certificate having been
refused. Held that as the Court was not competent to receive the application
after the prescribed period, in the absence of an explanation for the delay,
its action in refusing the application was not tantamount to refusing the certifi
cate, but only refusing to receive the application . This , view was overruled by
a Full Bench in No. 158 P. R. 88.
The period of 30 days allowed by sub-section 2 for an application for revi
sion of the order, refusing a certificate is not extendible, and no time can be de
93
Sections 41-42. ducted for the period spent in obtaining a copy of the order, (No. 86 P. R. 89),
but when the thirty days expired at a time when the Court was closed for the
Long Vacation, the application presented on the day the Court opened was
held to be within time. No. 29 P. R. 91.
(6). Proviso (ii) . The effect of this proviso is to lay down, as an absolute
rule, that no further appeal lies in Small Causes below Rs. 1,000, and in un
classed suits of value not exceeding Rs. 100, even though the decree involves
directly a claim to property exceeding Rs . 1,000 in value . See M. Zakaria v.
Fatma decided on 10th January 1894.
Where a creditor claimed to attach property in possession of a third party
as belonging to his judgment-debtor in execution of a decree for a sum under ""
Rs. 100, it was held by the Chief Court, that this being an " unclassed suit
no further appeal lay, although the decree affected immoveable property in the
hands of the third party to the value of nearly three thousand rupees.
When an application for revision has been admitted by a Judge in cham
bers as a further appeal on the ground that there was a question of law in
volved, the respondents are not bound by such ex-parte order, but are entitled
to call it in question and show that it was erroneous, and that a further
appeal did not lie, and was admitted through mistake or misconception. (No. 80
P. R, 94).
Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a deed of gift of certain land would
not affect their reversionary rights after the death of defendant No. I, and on
their suit being dismissed both by the District and the Divisional Court they
preferred a further appeal to the Chief Court which was admitted by the Judge
in chambers to a Bench. It was then ascertained that the value of gifted land
was under Rs. 1,000 and that therefore an appeal did not lie as of right .
Appellants Counsel not being prepared to meet this objection, the hearing was
adjourned to a later date; when it was further ascertained that subsequently to
the adjournment plaintiffs had made an application under clause (d) of sub
section ( 1 ) of section 40 Punjab Courts Act 1884, to the Divisional Judge for
a certificate. This application had been refused and a copy of the order of
refusal had been filed in the Chief Court, but no application for revision under
sub-section (2) of the said section had been presented to the Court within 30 days
from the date of the refusal to grant a certificate . The question referred to the
Full Bench was whether, under the circumstances of the case, the Court could
treat the petition of appeal, as originally presented as an application for revi
sion under sub- section (2 ) section 40 of the Act and allow the said petition to be
be amended .
Held, by the Full Bench, that inasmuch as the action of plaintiffs in pre
senting a copy of the order of refusal was tantamount to an application that
their former petition which was treated as a petition of appeal might be consider
ed as an application for revision under section 40 ( 2 ) of the Act, and as such
presentation took place within 30 days of the date of the refusal of the certificate
and in view of the fact that the original petition disclosed a question of law or
custom, the act of presenting a copy of the order of refusal was equivalent to
the presentation of an application for revision under section 40 (2) of the
Act. 27 P. R. 95 F. B.
41. Subject to the provisions ofthe last foregoing section

and of sections 595 and 622 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, an
appellate decree of a District Judge or Divisional Court shall
be final.
42. (1 ) The Local Government may confer on a Subordi

nate Judge the powers of a District Judge for the purpose of
hearing appeals from the Courts of Munsifs in any local area,
and may withdraw those powers.
13 94
(2) A Subordinate Judge shall, for purposes connected Sections 44-64.

with the exercise of powers so conferred, be deemed to be a
District Judge.
Note.
But a Subordinate Judge so invested has no jurisdiction to dispose of cases

under Act XL of 1858 (now Act VIII of 1890. ) No. 47 P.R. 1888.
43. (1) The period of limitation for an appeal under sec

tion 39 or section 40 and for an appeal from an order from
which an appeal lies shall run from the date ofthe decree or
order appealed against, and shall be as follows, that is to
say
(a) When the appeal lies to the District Judge - thirty
days ;
(b) When the appeal lies to the Divisional Court- sixty

days ;
(c) When the appeal lies to the Chief Court -ninety days.
(2) In computing these periods of thirty , sixty and ninety

days, and in all respects not herein specified , the limitation
of the appeals shall be governed by the provisions of the
Indian Limitation Act, 1877 :
Provided that, in computing the period of ninety days for

an appeal under clause (d) of section 40, sub- section ( 1) , the
time during which the application under that clause has been
be
44. For the purpose of section 617 of the Code of Civil Pro
cedure, every appeal to a Divisional Court under this Chap
ter shall, except when the value of the suit is one thousand
rupees or upwards, be deemed to be an appeal in which the
decree is final.
See No. 40. P. R. 1893.
CHAPTER V.
REVENUE COURTS .
45 to 61. [ Repealed by Act XVII of 1887.]
CHAPTER VI.
SETTLEMENT COURTS .
62 and 63. [ Repealed by Act XVII of 1887.]
CHAPTER VII.
SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
64. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Local

Government may, when it is empowered by this Act to make
any appointment or confer any powers, appoint, or confer
the powers on, any person specially by name or by virtue of
his office.
95
PUNJAB COURTS, [ACT XVIII .
Sections 65-70.
65. All powers conferred by this Act may be exercised
from time to time as occasion requires .
66. (1) The Local Government may fix the place or places
at which any Court under this Act is to be held.
(2 ) The place or places so fixed may be beyond the local

limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.
(3) Except as may be otherwise provided by any order

under this section, a Court under this Act may be held at
any place within the local limits of its jurisdiction .
67. (1) Subject to the approval of the Local Govern

ment, the Chief Court shall prepare a list of days to be observ
ed in each year as holidays in the Chief Court and Civil
Courts subordinate thereto .
(2) Every such list shall be published in the official
Gazette.
68. [ Pending proceedings. ] Repealed by Act XII of 1891 .
69. [ Appeals after Act comes into force against decrees, &c .
passed before] Repealed by Act XII of 1891 .
70. Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in its

application to the territories to which this Act extends, shall
be read as if the words " illegally or " were omitted, and for
the purposes of that section no appeal shall be deemed to lie
from the appellate decree of a Divisional Court to the Chief
Court when the case does not fall under clause (a) , clause (b),
or clause (c) of section 40 , and an application under clause (a)
of that section has been refused.
Notes.
This section follows the views of Sir C. P. Ilbert expressed when the Pun
jab Courts Act was passed into law in 1884. His remarks on that occasion
pointed to the difficulty of foreseeing how a revisional authority expressed of
necessity in wide and general terms would in practice be interpreted ; but he
urged, quoting the words of Mr. Justice West, that the exercise of this jurisdic
tion should be discretional, and that it should be used only to sustain the regu
lar course of judicial administration, and not to promote uncertainty and rest
lessness by an overnice scrutiny of proceedings which should aim at promptness
rather than at refinement. This discretion should be exercised strictly with
reference to the Judge's own judgment of its expediency, and not on the motion
of parties seeking by this means to obtain an appeal from which the law has
debarred them.
CASES IN WHICH THE CHIEF COURT HAS EXERCISED, OR
REFUSED TO EXERCISE, POWERS OF REVISION.
(i.) Act XXIII of 1861 , Section 35 - Wrongfully withholding exercise of
jurisdiction. Interference of Chief Court. Plaintiffs' suit on a bond for Rs.
218-9-6 was dismissed by the Court of first instance, whose decision was affirmed
on appeal, on the ground that the suit was barred by section 7 ot Act VIII
of 1859. Plaintiff petitioned the Chief Court under section 35 of Act XXIII
of 1861 , alleging that he had not in fact split his claim, and urging that the
Lower Court had, in rejecting his suit as barred by section 7, Civil Procedure
Code, exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, i.e., had wrongfully with
held the exercise of its jurisdiction.
96
1884. ] PUNJAB COURTS ,
Held, by the Chief Court, that it was not a case where the proceedings of Section 70.
the Lower Court could be revised under section 35 of Act XXIII of 1861 ; but
that the petitioner's remedy was a review of the Lower Court's judgment.
Jussa Sing v. Noora, (No. 36 P. R. , 1872.)
(ii. ) Act IV of 1866, sec. 16. Want of jurisdiction in Small Cause Court.
Discretion of Chief Court -Delay in moving the Court. The Chief Court, under
section 16 of Act IV of 1866 , was not bound to call for the record of a case decided
by the Small Cause Court, on the ground that the latter Court was without
jurisdiction ; and having called for the record, the Chief Court had a discretion,
and refused to interfere with the order of the Small Cause Court. Delay on
the part of the defendant in applying to the Chief Court was held to be a ground
for refusing to interfere.- Ludlam v. Abdulgafur, ( No. 50 P. R. , 1876, Civil.)
(iii.) Where the Judge of Small Cause Court gave plaintiff a money decree
against two defendants, and it was evident that as regards one of the defend
ants (the present petitioner), the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation
before the suit was instituted , the Court, on the revision side, set aside the
decree as against the petitioning defendant, holding that the Lower Court had
acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction within the meaning of section
622, Act X of 1887, as amended by Act XII of 1879.
Per Barkley, J.- The object of the above section seems to be not merely to
provide a remedy for wilful wrong-doing on the part of Courts exercising final
jurisdiction, but enable parties who are prejudiced by decisions without juris
diction or contrary to law passed by such Courts to redress if the High Court
considers the case one which calls for interference. Sirdarni Kishan Kour v.
Munna Lal, (No. 78 P. R. , 1880, Civil . )
(iv.) - Dismissal of application for default . -Rehearing- Procedure.- An
application for rehearing of an application for revision under section 622 of the
Civil Procedure Code which has been dismissed in fault is not the correct mode
of procedure. A fresh application for revision should be put in. Court of
Wards v. Fatteh Singh (No. 75 P. R. , 1881.)
(v.)-Act XIX of 1841 , -power of Chief Court to revise order under.
(Held) by the Full Bench, that an order passed under Act XIX of 1841 is
open to revision by the Chief Court under section 622 of the Civil Procedure
Code on any of the grounds specified in that section . Gorakh Nath v. Bishem
ber Nath (No. 66 P. R., 1882. )
(vi.)-Appeal dismissed for default. Omission of appellant to apply
for rehearing. Where an appellant, whose appeal before the Commissioner
was dismissed for default, took no steps to have his appeal restored to the
file of that Court under section 558 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Chief
Court held that they were unable to interfere on the revision side under
section 622 of the Code, as the final order of the Commissioner in appeal
to his Court would have been open to appeal. Karm Bakhsh v. Balmokand
(No. 13 P. R. 1881. )
(vii.)—Application for revision of order rejecting appeal from order refusing
to set aside ex-parte decree. " Case " in which no appeal lies. Held that an appli
cation to the Chief Court to set aside an order passed by a Commissioner reject
ing an appeal from an order by a Judicial Assistant refusing to set aside an ex
parte decree is not one which properly falls under section 622 of the Civil Pro-.
cedure Code, as that section only applies to cases in which no appeal lies to the
High Court ; whereas in the above case an appeal would have lain to the Chief
Court in the ordinary course, if the defendants had chosen to adopt the remedy
of appeal which the law allowed to them from an ex-parte decree, instead of the
alternative remedy allowed by section 108 of the Code. Mussammat Sahib
Dai v. Jaga Singh (No, 105 P. R., 1880, cited. Ganda Mal v. Shibji Ram
(No. 144 P. R., 1883.)
97
PUNJAB COURTS , [ACT XVIII.
Section 70. (viii.)-Appeal from amended decree. Rejection of such appeal as barred by
time. Application to revise order of rejection. Upon the application of the plaintiff
decree-holder, the first Court, after giving notice to the Judgment- debtors
under section 206 of Civil Procedure Code, amended the decree in the suit so
as to bring it into conformity with the Judgment. The judgment- debtors then
brought a miscellaneous appeal (on a Court fee stamp of one rupee) from the
amended decree to the Commissioner, who rejected the appeal as barred by limi
tation. On an application by the judgment- debtors to the Chief Court under
section 622, Civil Procedure Code, for revision of the last named order, held that
the defendant's remedy was to bring a regular appeal on full stamp to the Com
missioner from the amended decree within the period of limitation, and as an
appeal would have lain to the Chief Court from the Commissioner's decree on
such appeal, an application under s . 622 of the Code was barred, aud the fact
that the judgment-debtors delayed in appealing to the Commissioner's Court
till their appeal was barred by time gave them no right to make the present
application, and conferred no power ou the Chief Court to entertain it. Abdul
Ghanni v. Kundan Lal (No. 71 P. R. 1884.)
(ix.)-Order refusing application for leave to sue in formâ pauperis. In
a suit for partition of the ancestral property of the parties, the lower Court dis
missed an application by plaintiff for leave to sue as a paper on the ground
that he was in possession of sufficient property to enable him to pay the Court fee.
The plaintiff applied for revision of this order on the ground that the property
referred to by the Court as being in his possession formed part of the ancestral
property for partition of which the suit was brought, and being part of the
subject-matter of the suit, should not, with reference to the explanation to
section 401 of the Civil Procedure Code, have been taken into account. •
Held, overruling an objection by respondent that the present application was
not admissible under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the enquiry
as to whether the plaintiff was a pauper being a judicial proceeding and the order
determining it not being subject to appeal, the person against whom the question
is decided may apply to the Chief Court for revision of the order on any of the
grounds stated in section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Lakha r. Mussam
mat Ramu (No. 81 P. R.; 1881 , Civil) cited. Harsarn Singh v. Muhammad Raza
(I. L. R., 4 All . 91 ) disapproved of. Sheikh Muhammad Mubarik v. Sheikh
Fazal Illahi .-No . 99 P. R. 1882.
(x.)-Application to appeal in forma pauperis.- Rejection of application ,

Powers of Revision. - Held that it is open to the Chief Court to exercise its
powers under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the lower Court
has acted with material irregularity, in rejecting an application to appeal in
forma pauperis under section 592 of the Code. Harsaran Singh r. Muhammad
Raza, I. L. R., 4 All . 91 ) not followed . Barkit Ali v. Ghulam Kadar ( No. 21
P. R. 1885.)
(xi) .- Held, following the ruling of the Privy Council in Amir Hussan Khan
2. Sheo Bakhsh Singh ( I. L. R. , 11 Cal. 6 , that) section 622 of the Civil Pro
cedure Code docs not authorize the Chief Court to interfere with an erroneous
decision on the ground that the Court which passed it acted in the exercise of
its jurisdiction illegally.
When the lower Court has given a wrong decision on the question whether
the plaintiff had a cause of action for the relief prayed for, the case falls
within the principle of the decision of the Privy Council above cited, provided
that the lower Court has jurisdiction to decide and did decide whether a cause
of action existed or not. - Rama v. Jowahir (No. 64 P. R., 1885. ) But see (xviii
infra and 75, P, R., 1890.)
(xii.)—Held, that where a Court, having jurisdiction over a suit or other

proceeding has to consider a plea of limitation and does consider and decide it
98
1884.1 PUNJAB COURTS ,
Section 70.
but erroneously the error in the decision is not an irregularity so as to open
a door to revision. Rama v. Jowahir (No. 64 P. R. 1885), cited . Hari Singh
v. Dit Mal (No. 22 P. R. 1886, Civil).
(xiii.)-Where the Cantonment Magistrate decreed plaintiff's claim against
defendant on the ground that defendant admitted it, whereas a reference to the
written plea of the defendant showed that he did not admit the claim, but, onthe
contrary, said it was false, nor was there any evidence on the record to show that
the defendant ever admitted the claim, the Chief Court, holding that a material
irregularity had been committed within the meaning of section 622, Civil Pro
cedure Code, set aside the decree and remanded the case for a fresh trial and
decision. Thakur Mull v. Ram Nath (No. 29 P. R. 1886).
(xiv.)-Held that an appellate judgment deciding, though erroneously, that
the Court of first instance had jurisdiction to hear the suit, is not open to revision
by the Chief Court where no appeal lies, as the lower appellate Court cannot in
such a case be said to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law simply
because it has come to an erroneous decision on a question of jurisdiction raised
by an appeal properly preferred to it, and which it was therefore bound to decide,
nor could it be said, under such circumstances, that the appellate Court had
acted with material irregularity.-Rama v. Jowahir (No. 64 P. R. 1885) cited .
Daulat Ram v. Asa Ram (No. 46 P. R. 1886).
(xv.)- In a suit by plaintiff to compel the defendant to close certain win
dows recently enlarged, which the plaintiff alleged interfered with privacy and
caused him inconvenience, the lower Courts, though holding that no recognised
customary right of privacy to householders was established, decreed the demoli
tion of the windows.
Held, that as the Courts had virtually decided that the plaintiff had no
cause of action, and yet notwithstanding that had given him a decree, they must
be held to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them by law, which
warranted the interference of the Chief Court under section 622 of the Civil
Procedure Code, Rama v. Jowahir (No. 64 P. R. 1885) distinguished. Asa
Ram v. Nadu Mal (No. 70 P. R. 1886) .
(xvi.)-Held that the omission by a Small Cause Court to call on ou the op
posite party to show cause before granting a new trial under section 21 of Act
XI of 1865, is not a material irregularity in the exercise of the Court's Jurisdic
tion within the meaning of section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code.
It is, however, desirable and fitting that a new trial should not be granted
until the opposite side has been allowed to show cause against it . Mohna v.
Harcharn Singh- No. 102 P. R. 1886.
(xvii.)—Held that a Court of first appeal in remanding a case under section

566, Civil Procedure Code, to a Court other than the Court which tried the case,
cannot be said to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, within the
meaning of section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The error (assuming
it to be an error) is one of procedure, and the Court at most acts erroneously in
the exercise of its jurisdiction, and the irregularity does not afford ground for
revision, unless it is shown to be material. -Bhojan Das v. Mussammat Muraddu,
No. 111 P. R. 1886.
(xviii .) —On an application for revision under section 622 of the Civil
Procedure Code, the ground urged by the plaintiff, petitioner, and found to be
correct in fact was, that on a date which had been fixed for the production of
evidence in the first Court, he produced seven witnesses for examination, whom
the Court declined to examine on the ground that there was no necessity to do
so and that the Divisional Judge on plaintiff's appeal erroneously over-ruled
the plaintiff's contention that the first Court was bound to examine the wit.
nesses in attendance, under the mistaken view that the date when the said wit
t 99
Section 70. nesses were present was not specially fixed for taking evidence, whereas in
reality the date had been so fixed .
Held, that as the erroneous decision of the Divisional Judge in affirming on
appeal the decree of the Court below, which was open to the objection of
material irregularity was the consequence of an erroneous assumption of a fact
to wit, that the plaintiff did not tender his evidence at the time specially fixed
for taking it, whereas the record showed he did do so the decision in question
was open to revision under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with
section 70 of Act XVIII of 1884, on the ground that the Divisional Judge had
acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity.
The interpretation put upon section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code by
their Lordships of the Privy Council in Amir Hassan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh
( I. L. R. II , Calcutta, 6) that, so long as a Court has jurisdiction over the sub
ject-matter of a suit, the mere circumstance that the Court decides wrongly is no
ground for saying that it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity, must, to be precisely understood, be considered in connection with
the particular question which their Lordships had to decide, viz., whether the
Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the Courts be
low, from which there was no further appeal to his Court merely because in his
opinion, they had erroneously decided a plea of res judicata which arose in the case.
The matter stands in a different light, when the wrong decision is the
result of an erroneous assumption that a certain law or fact exists which has
really no existence. In the latter case the High Court can interfere on the
ground of material irregularity. Rama v. Jowahir (No. 64 P. R. 1885) , Hari
Singh v. Dit Mal (No. 22 P. R. 1886) , and Daulat Ram v. Asa Ram (No. 46,
ibid.), referred to Sardar Fakir Muhummad Khan v . Kasim ,-No. 105 P. R.
1888.
(xix. )—It is not every legal error of the Subordinate Court that entitles a
party to an order from the Chief Court under section 25 of Act IX of 1887.
The jurisdiction under that section is one the exercise of which is discretional
with the Court, and should not be exercised except to remedy injustice. Secre
tary of State v. Johnson.- No . 79 P. R. 1888. See 66 P. R. 95.
(xx.)-A sale in execution of decree of land paying revenue to Covernment

made and confirmed without sanction is void and may be set aside on revision.—
No. 95 P. R. 88.
(xxi.)-Substituted Service. It is the imperative duty of a Court of original

jurisdiction before declaring that a summons has been duly served, within the
meaning of section 82 C. P. C. by means of substituted service, to see that the
condition exists which alone justifies such service, namely, that the person who
ought to be served personally, is keeping out of the way for the purpose of
avoiding the service, and the omission to ascertain that the requisite condition
does exist before passing an ex parte decree, is a material iregularity justifying
the interference of the Chief Court (where no further appeal lies) under section
622.-No. 104 P. R. 88.
(xxii.)-The order directing the decree to be amended is a separate

adjudication, and is not a decree and not being appealable as an order is open
to revision.-No. 101 P. R. 88.
(xxiii .)—Held, that though a mere error in law in a lower Court is not matter
of revision under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and if a Court appre
hending the points at issue, and looking at certain documents or certain sections of
an Act, necessary to arrive at a decision comes on consideration to a legal con
clusion as to the interpretation of such sections or the construction of such do
cuments, which conclusion may be held to be bad in law, the power of revision
100
1884.] PUNAJE COURTS ,
under the above section does not arise, yet where the Court has assumed a fact Section 70:
to exist or has assumed the applicability of a rule, or a " section of an Act which
does not exist at all or is wholly inapplicable, then there is material irregu
larity which the Chief Court in revision can correct. - 42 P. R. 1889 .
(xxiv.)-A previous suit between the same parties regarding the same land
was dismissed on the ground that the plaint did not show a cause of action.
The second suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by Section 13,
Civil Procedure Code.
Held that this order was wrong, as the plaint in the first suit had been
rejected at the first hearing, and section 56 did not bar the institution of a fresh
suit. It was then contended that though the order was wrong, this was not a
ground for revision. Held that when there is a mis- statement of fact and a
misrepresentation of what is apparent on the face of the record, there is material
irregularity furnishing ground for revision . -No. 130 P. R. 1889.
(xxv )—Issues incorrectly framed.- Points for determination of appeal in

correctly stated.-Facts assumed which did not exist. Contents of documents mis
stated. - Res-judicata. - Effect of Privy Council decision in Raja Amir Hassan v Sheo
Bakhsh Singh, I. L. R., 11 C. 6. — In a suit not open to further appeal to the
Chief Court the lower Appellate Court concurring with the first Court, dimiss
ed the suit of plaintiffs, 17 in number, as to certain land in suit, as being barred
under Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, by a previous decision . In fact one of
the plaintiffs had sued some of the same defendants for the same land and his
suit had been dismissed merely for want of parties .
Held that the Chief Court was competent to interfere as a Court of Revision
under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code. It is the duty of a Court of first in
stance to frame issues on the pleadings of the parties and to frame them correctly.
It is the duty of an appellate Court to state the points for determination and to
state them correctly.
An incorrect issue or an incorrect statement of the points for determination

in an appeal is an irregularity which may be material , and may warrant the
exercise of the Chief Court's power of revision. The misrepresentation of do
cumentary evidence as distinguished from misconstruction of a document is an
irregularity as distinguished from an error of law.
The judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Amir Hussain
Khan v. Shew Bakhsh Singh, (India Law Reports, XI Calcutta, page 6) com
mented upon. In that case it was not decided by the Judicial Committee that
a Court which erroneously decides upon a plea of res-judicata does not act illegally
or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and therefore its
decision cannot be set aside upon revision under Section 622, Civil Proceduro
Code.-No. 206 P. R. 1889.
(xxvi. )-Arbitration. — Arbitrators omitting to examine all the defendant's wit

nesses, Lower Court overruling plea of misconduct and giving judgment in terms of
award. - Ground for revision. -Material irregularity. - Court giving wrong decision
upon legal question.- In this case it was objected that the arbitrators did not exa
mine all the witnesses , though they were present. The Lower Court found that the
arbitrators were not bound to take all the evidence produced, but only so much
as they considered necessary for the purpose of justice and finding no miscon
duct proved, made a decree in terms of the award . Held that the decision was
wrong, but it was not open to revision as the Court considered the objection,
and adjudicated upon it and the mere circumstance that the adjudication was
erroneous was no ground for revision.- No. 58 P. R. 1889.
(xxvii . ) - When a guardian ad litem compromised a suit without the sanction
of the Court in which the suit was pending, and the Court passed a decree on the
101
[ACT XVIII
PUNJAB COURTS,
compromise without making any inquiry as to whether it was beneficial to the

Section 70, minior or not. Held that the Court committed a material irregularity , —No . 105
P. R. 1889 .
(xxviii .) The parties to the suit (members of a partnership) executed an
agreement to refer certain accounts inter se and as between the partnership and
a certain other person A for settlement to a private arbitrator . The arbitrator
settled the account between the parties and A only. On application by plain
tiffs that the agreement be filed, the Court erroneously considering that the
effect of settling the parties ' account with A was to settle the account inter se,
and that therefore nothing remained to be determined , refused to file the
agreement .
Held, that this order was not open to revision, as the Court did not assume
any non-existing fact, but only drew a wrong inference from admitted facts .
Chiragh v. Pir Bakhsh -No. 6 P. R. 1890.

(xxix.)-Absence of notice of adjourned hearing, effect of-necessity of dili
gence by parties. -A respondent had notice of the day fixed for hearing his
appeal . On that day he attended , but the case was not called up, and after
several adjournments , the appeal was heard and decided in respondent's absence
without further notice to him. The respondent, after the day first fixed , took
no steps to ascertain what was being done in the appeal, although he was in
Sialkote the day before the actual hearing .

The application under Section 622 Civil Procedure Code, made more than
a month after the hearing to set aside the decree made on appeal without notice
to him of the adjourned date of hearing was rejected by the Chief Court . Ram
Singh v. Chandu . -No. 34 P. R. 1890 .

(xxx.)-Judgments of Courts of final appeal . - District Judges sitting as
Courts of final appeal in suits of the nature of small causes are bound to exercise
their jurisdiction in a regular manner and to write their judgment according to
the provisions of Section 574, Civil Procedure Code. In a case in which the
District Judge did not state the true points for determination nor the reasons
for his decision , the Chief Court, on the revision side, reversed his order and
directed a re-hearing of the appeal . Ganga Ram v. Jowahir Singh , -No . 72 P. R.
1890.
(xxxi. ) -Court acting in the exercise ofitsjurisdiction illegally- wrong decision
on the question of cause of action . Assignment of decree. Remedy by regular suit.
Held by the Full Benciff h

That when a plaint files a plaint stating facts which , if true, constitute
in law a cause of action , and the court rejects the plaint , or dismisses the suit,
merely on the ground that these facts constitute no cause , the Court fails to
exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law within the meaning of Section 622,
Habibulla v. Mussammat Fateh Bibi.-No. 75 P. R.
Civil Procedure Code .
1890(xxxi
. i .) --Exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law .-Regulation I of 1798.
Regulation I of 1798 applies only to mortgages by conditional sale and the
functions of a District Judge under that enactment are merely ministeral , not
Judicial . In a case where a District Judge on the application of a mortgagor
in a mortgage not by way of conditional sale received certain money tendered as
the amount due on the mortgage , issued notice to the mortgagee, and decided
summmarily what was actually due. Held that the proceedings must be set aside
for want of jurisdiction . Sanwant v. Dya Ram.-Ño. 107 P. R. 1890 .
(xxxiii .) -Proper issues not settled - Mis-apprehension ofcase.- Where there had
been material irregularity in framing the issues and a complete misapprehension of
102 !
1884. ] PUNJAB COURTS ,
the case presented for decision by parties to the Court, the Chief Court under Section 70.
Section 622 Civil Procedure Code, set aside the decree of the Appellate Court,
and returned the case for redisposal of the appeal after further enquiry, if
necessary. Mula Shah v. Nizam Din.-No. 108 P. R. 1890.
•
(xxxiv. ) -The erroneous construction of a judgment and decree is not a
material irregularity within the meaning of Section 622, Civil Procedure Code,
1882, and forms no ground for revision. - No. 60 P. R. 1891.
(xxxv. )-Appellate Court reversing decree on point not affecting merits.— It

may be a material irregularity and ground for revision, that an Appellate
Court in contravention of the provisions of Section 578 , Civil Procedure Code,
has reversed the decree of a Subordinate Court merely by reason of an irregu
larity not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court.
No. 65 P. R. 1891 .
(xxxvi.) It is a material irregularity and forms a ground for revision

when the lower courts act upon a misrepresentation of a fact apparent upon the
record, or the erroneous assumption of a fact, or the application of a rule, or a
failure to appreciate the true points for determination raised by a general issue,
such as one of res judicata or limitation, when such irregularity results in the
dismissal of a suit on a technical ground, apart from the merits, which can be
shown to be erroneous. Punjab Record , No. 105 of 1888, Nos . 42 , 130 and 206
of 1889, Nos. 6 and 108 and 1890 , and Nos. 60 and 65 of 1891 , referred to, No. 36
P. R. 1892.
(xxxvii .)-Jurisdiction .-Refusal of District Judge to issue a notice under Regu
lation XVII of 1806.-The District Judge refused to issue a notice under Regu
lation XVII of 1806, holding that the mortgage-deed propounded was not a
mortgage by conditional sale and therefore not within the scope of the
Regulation.
The plaintiff applied for revision. Held, overruling the District Judge as
to the nature and construction of the document, that his order was under the
oircumstances open to revision. -No. 119 P. R. 1892 .
(xxxviii. )- Order under Section 108 of the Code, setting aside an exparte
decree. An application was made to revise an order made under Section 108,
Civil Procedure Code, setting aside an exparte decree, such order being made
nearly seven years after the date of the decree.
Held, following Punjab Record, No. 114 of 1883, that no application under
Section 622 of the Code would lie. The suit was one in which an appeal would
lie, and by the word " case " the whole suit is meant. -No. 125 P. R. 1892.
See 94 P. R. 94.
(xxxix.)-Burden of proof. - Material irregularity.- Plaintiff sued as the

adopted son of P. to recover land in possession of the defendant. Both the
lower Courts concurred in finding that the adoption, which was the only title
plaintiff set up, was not proved. But the Divisional Judge, finding that defend
ant had failed to establish his right to more than half the land in suit, gave
plaintiff a decree for the other half, which on P.'s death had been entered in
plaintiff's name.
Held, that the plaintiff having failed to prove his adoption by P., the suit.
ought to have been dismissed in toto, and that it was irregular to enter into the
question whether defendant could prove a title to half, and on his failing to do
so to give the plaintiff half.-No. 89 P. R. 1893.
(xl.) -Arbitrators, remuneration of-jurisdiction of Court to direct payment

of sum ordered to be deposited in Court as remuneration - Interlocutory order, Held
103
[ACT XVIII
PUNJAB COURts ,
that on a reference to arbitration , the Court in the absence of any agreement by

the parties , either spontaneously or in answer to a demand by the arbitrators,
Section 70.
to pay any sum as remuneration to the latter, has no jurisdiction either special
or general , to make an order for deposit in Court of a sum for that purpose , or
to direct its payment to the arbitrators .-No. 94 P. R. 1894 .
(xli.) -" Material irregularity ." —-Wrong decision on merits of case. Held
that however erroneous a decision may be upon the merits, whether it be in
conclusions drawn from the evidence, or in the application of the law to the
facts, it is not an irregularity to give a wrong decision upon the merits . -No. 9
P. R. 1894 .
(xlii .)—Execution of decree -Court refusing to execute decree on ground of
indefiniteness. Power of Court to make inquiry or take evidence as to meaning of
decree. -Judge not following opinion expressed by his predecessor on same matter.
A decree -holder applied for execution of his decree , but the Court refused to
execute it on the ground that it could not be ascertained after enquiry what was
intended by the decree . On appeal by the decree - holder, the Divisional Judge
held that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree itself and that the
decree -holder's remedy was to apply to the Judge who made the decree to
amend it. The decree -holder accordingly applied to that Judge to amend the
decree, but his application was rejected . He thereupon again applied for exe
cution, and, on execution being again refused , appealed to the Divisional Judge
a third officer - who, after reference to the preceeding orders , directed execution
to proceed . The judgement -debtor applied to the Chief Court on the revision
side on the gronnd that the last order of the Divisional Judge ought to be set
aside, inasmuch as the question whether the decree was capable of execution
was res judicata by reason of the previous orders of the Divisional Court .
The question having been referred to a Bench , held, that, though it might
be a ground for revision that the Judge of the lower Appellate Court had re
opened a question on which his predecessor had already expressed an opinion ,
final as regards appeal, the Court is not bound to interfere on revision when it
is found that the lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction over the appeal and
exercised it. The Court not being satisfied that the earlier opinion was correct
dismissed the application .- 10 P. R. 1894 .
(xliii .) -The omission to raise and try an issue of fact, which if decided in
defendant's favour is a complete answer to the claim is a material irregularity
sufficient to warrant revision being granted . - No. 19 P. R. 1894 .
(xliiv.)—“ Application to sue in forma pauperis .-Court issuing notice to defend

ant without preliminary inquiry. -Material irregularity. - Right to sue in such
·Court. - Plaintiff having applied to the District Judge for leave to sue as a
pauper, the District Judge without making any inquiry under section 406 or
407 of the Civil Procedure Code 1882 , issued notice to defendant , fixing a date
for the parties to give evidence . On the date so fixed the Court on an objection
by defendant that plaintiff was subject to prohibition ( c) of section 407 inasmuch
as his suit was barred by limitation , rejected the application for leave to sue in
forma pauperis but without specifying the section under which he acted .
Held, that the irregularity committed by the District Judge in omitting to

'proceed under Section 406 and 407 before issuing notice to defendant was a
" material irregularity " inasmuch as the rejection of an application under
section 407 does not debar the applicant from making another similar applica
tion, whereas an order under Section 409 is under section 413, a bar to a fresh
application under Chapter XXVI of the Code in respect of the same cause of
action .- No. 130 P. R. 1894 .
104
1884.] PUNJAB COURTS ,
(xlv.)—Plaintiff on the 25th July 1892 filed his plaint which was on that Section 70
date admittedly within time, in the Court of the District Judge, Kangra, who
endorsed an order thereon that " the case be made over to the Munsif of
Kangra " and returned the plaint to the plaintiff hat he might himself take
it to the Munsif's Court. Plaintiff, however, did not present the plaint to the
Munsif till the 11th November 1892, on which date limitation applicable to
the suit had expired . The District Judge, on appeal from the Munsif's order
decreeing plaintiff's claim, dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim was
time-barred.
Held that the plaint, having been originally presented to the proper officer
within limitation, was not liable to dismissal, because, having been improperly
given back to the plaintiff by that officer, it was not again presented to the
Court deputed to try the case until the period of limitation had expired, and
that the District Judge had committed a material irregularity ' in applying
a rule of limitation not contained in any provision of the Limitation Act.
7 P. R. 95 .
(xlvi. )-Plaintiff, a minor, through his father, as next friend, sued for the
custody of his minor wife, whose mother was appointed her guardian ad litem.
The first Court framed only one issue, viz., whether plaintiff's marriage with
his wife was legal and void, and allowed the matter in dispute to be referred
bythe respective guardians to two arbitrators, an umpire being appointed by
itself in case of a difference of opinion . The arbitrators, on the 13th November
1893, filed an award, finding the marriage proved , whereupon the Court, after
allowing the usual time for objections, decreed plaintiff's claim. This decree
having been confirmed on appeal by the Divisional Judge, defendants preferred
a further appeal to the Chief Court.
Held that though it was doubtful whether an appeal could be said to lie,
the defects that were apparent in the proceedings of the first Court were such
as to amount to " material irregularity," inasmuch as (a) the Court failed to
record an order under section 462 of the Civil Procedure Code before allowing
the case to be referred to arbitrators by the guardian of the minor defendant,
and (b) it was not competent to the Court to delegate to arbitrators the ques
tion, whether or not a claim for custody of a wife should be decreed, such ques
tion especially when either party is a minor being entirely one for the discretion
of the Court.-37 P. R. 95.
(xlvii .) —Plaintiff's suit for Rs. 825, the price of a horse alleged to have
been sold by him to defendant, having been dismissed by the District Judge, an
appeal from the decree was filed by a certain advocate in the Court of the
Divisional Judge. At the hearing of the appeal, an advocate of the Bombay
Bar stated that he appeared on behalf of the appellant, but the respondent
urged as preliminary objections, ( I' that the appeal was, as shown by certain
letters written by the appellant after the date of the decree of the District
Judge, unauthorised by the appellant ; and (2) that inasmuch as the plaintiff
had, after the decision of the first Court, advertised the horse for sale as his own
property for a smaller sum than that he claimed from defendant as its price,
he had deprived himself of any right of appeal, even if the appeal were other
wise duly authorised and valid. The Divisional Judge considered both objec
tions, and, holding that they were well founded, dismissed the appeal with
costs against the appellant, who thereupon applied to the Chief Court on the
revision side. For the petitioner it was contended that the Divisional Judge,
in dismissing the appeal (a) on the ground that it was unauthorised, had " failed
to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law " ; and (b) on the ground that it
C
was contrary to some unspecified rule of equity, justice and good conscience,' had
acted with material irregularity. The respondent, while admitting that the
order of the Divisional Judge as regards costs could not be supported, contended
that there had been no failure to exercise jurisdiction or acting with material
105
Section 70. irregularity and that the Chief Court was incompetent to touch the decision on
the revision side. Held that the Chief Court has full power in an application
for revision to go into the merits of the decision of the Court whose proceedings
are being revised . Held, further, that the lower Appellate Court in dismissing
the appeal as unauthorised had ' failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by
law.' Held, also that in dismissing the appeal upon the assumption that there
was some rule of equity not specified in the judgment it had acted with
material irregularity.-54 P. R. 1896.
Rulings of High Courts.

1. Delay in moving Court. - Where an auction-purchaser applied to the High
Court to set aside, in the exercise of its powers under section 622 of the Civil
Procedure Code, an order setting aside a sale of immoveable property in execu
tion of a decree, on the ground that such order was illegal, such application be
ing made nearly seventeen months after the date of such order, the Court, hav
ing regard to the time that had elapsed before such application was made,
refused to interfere. In the matter of the petition of Durga Prasad -I. L. R.,
4 All., 154.
2. On the question whether the High Court should refrain from exercisirg
its powers under section 622 by reason of the long time which had elapsed from
the date of the decree.- Held that the petitioner was not fairly chargeable with
laches. Balmakund v. Sheo Jatan Lal -I. L. R. , 6 All . , 125 .
3. Interference without application by a party to suit. -A High Court can in
terfere under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure without an application
made to it by a party to the suit. Anthony v. Dupont. 1. L. R., 4 Mad., 217.
4. Interference without application by party to suit.-Reference from District
Judge. It is only on the application of a party interested that the High Conrt
can act as a Court of Revision under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Accordingly, where a Munsif considering the Subordinate Judge had acted with.
out jurisdiction in setting aside on appeal certain orders made by him, brought
the matter to the knowledge of the District Judge who took the same view, and
the latter referred the case to the High Court under that section, it was held
that the Court had no power to interfere . Mahomed Foyez Chowdhry v. Goluck
Dass.- 7 C. L. R., 191 .
5. Case where other specific remedy exists. - Bom . Reg: II of 1827, s. 5 —Certio
rari Mandamus.- Prohibition - Specific Relief Act I of 1877, ch. VIII. —A Division
Bench (Pinhey and Nanabhai Haridas J.J. ) of the High Court referred the follow
ing question for the determination of the Full Bench Whether the High Court
should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 622 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, or otherwise, on behalf of persons whe feel themselves aggriev
ed by orders passed by Courts below in cases in which it appears the law has
specifically prescribed another remedy by suit or otherwise ?" Held that the ques
tion did not admit of a precise categorical reply ; that the High Court could not
impose on itself limitations without regard to circumstances ; but that the general
principles governing the exercise, by the High Court, of its visitatorial or
superintending powers to be deduced from a general survey of the authorities on
the subject might be reduced to the form of the following seven propositions, the
fifth of which would ordinarily govern the class of cases alluded to in the question :
(1) The visitatorial or superintending power of the High Court is so neces
sary and almost indispensable that it is not to be wholly excluded even by a
clause in a statute withdrawing cases under the statute from its control. When
such a statute has been made a mere pretext, or has been wholly misapplied, the
case will be treated as one not really arising under the statute, but on an evasion
or perversion of the statute and, as such, subject to the general control of the Court ,
(2) The Court, having called up the record or proceedings of a subordinate
Court, will itself investigate the facts on which a jurisdiction has been assumed or
declined ; on which it depends whether the subordinate Court could or could not
legally deal with the matter in question, either at all or on the principle to which
it has referred the case ; or according to which its mode of inquiry or of action
106
1884.] PUNJAB COURTS ,
may or may not have been in contradiction rather than obedience to the rules of Section 70.
procedure or the principles implied in them, to such a material extent
as to defeat the purpose of the law.
(3) If the Court finds that the external conditions of jurisdiction , of investi
gatioa, and of command, have been satisfied by the inferior Court, it will not
substitute its own appreciation of evidence, or its own judgment thereon, for the
determination of the inferior Court, in any matter committed by the Legislature
to the discretion of such Court.
(4) Where an appeal is provided, the Court will not interfere by any
peremptory order with the ordinary course of adjudication, save in cases wherein
a defeat of the law and a grave wrong are manifest, and are irremediable by the
regular procedure.
(5) Where a decree or order of a subordinate Court is declared by the law to
be, for its own purposes, final or conclusive, though its nature provisional, as subject
to displacement by the decree in another more formal suit, the Court will have
regard to the intention of the Legislature that promptness and certainty should ,
in such cases, be in some measure accepted instead of juridical perfection. It
will rectify the proceedings of the inferior Court where the extrinsic conditions
of its legal activity have plainly been infringed ; but where the alleged or
apparent error consist in a misappreciation of evidence, or misconstruction of the
law, intrinsic to the inquiry and decision, it will respect the intended finality, and
will intervene peremptorily only when it is manifest that by the ordinary and
prescribed method an adequate remedy, or the intended remedy, cannot be had.
(6) The Court will, in all cases, regard its exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction as discretional , and subject to considerations of the importance of the
particular case, or of the principle involved in it, of delay on the part of an
applicant, and of his merits with respect to the case in which the interference of
the Court is sought. Should other special causes appear for or against the
Court's intervention, due weight is to be given to them, regard being always had
to the principles already enunciated .
(7) The Court will " sedulously abstain " from making any order or refus
ing to make it on grounds the appreciation of which is exclusively assigned by
law to some other authority, provided the legal competence be exercised in good
faith on matters that may reasonably be understood as within its lawful range.
Shiva Nathaji v. Joma Kashinath . I. L. R. 7 Bom. , 341 .
6. Cases in which appeal lies.—“ Decree." - Order rejecting memorandum of
appeal.- An order rejecting a memorandum of appeal as barred by limitation is a
" decree " within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code ; it is,
therefore appealable, and not open to revision by the High Court under section
622 of the Code. Gulab Rai v Mangli Lal. I. L. R. , 7 All . , 42 .
7. Civil Procedure Code , 1882, s . 381 .--Order dismissing suit on failure to give
securityfor costs.- Held by the Full Bench that an order passed under section 381
of the Civil Procedure Code, dismissing a suit for failure by the plaintiff to
furnish security for the costs as ordered, was the decree in the suit, and appeal
able as such, and consequently was not open to revision by the High Court
under section 622 of the Code. Williams v. Brown. I. L. R. , 8 All . , 108.
8. Order amending decree under s. 206, Civil Procedure Code, 1882, -High
Court's
's powers of revision. -A District Judge, by an order passed under section
206 of the Civil Procedure Code, altered a decree passed by his predecessor in
the terms, " I dismiss the appeal," to read " I accept the appeal," on the ground
that his predecessor had obviously meant to say that he accepted the appeal,
and that the decree as it stood failed to give effect to the judgment. Per
Oldfield, J. - That the order passed by the Judge under section 206 could not be.
made the subject of revision by the High Court under section 622 of the Civil
Procedure Code, because there was an appeal from the amended decree, which
became the decree in the suit and superseded the original decree. Per Mahmood,
107
[ACT XVIII .
PUNJAB COURTS .
J. - That an order passed under section 206 of the Civil Procedure Code con
stituted an adjudication separate from that concluded by a decree under the
Code , passed after the parties had been heard and evidence taken , and that the
order in the present case was therefore a separate adjudication, and was not
appealable under section 588. Also that , in saying that by " dismissed " his pre
decessor meant " decreed ," the Judge had altered the decree in a manner not
warranted by the terms of section 206 ; that he had therefore exercised his
jurisdiction " illegally and with material irregularity," within meaning of section
622 of the Code ; and that the Court was consequently competent to revise his
order . Raghunath Das v. Raj Kumar , I. L. R. , 2 All . , 276 referred to. Surta v.
S. C. on appeal under the Letters Patent reversing the judgment of

Gangald . I. L. R., 7 All ., 411 .
Oldfie J. and affirming that of Mahmood , J. Surta v. Ganga . I. L. Ř. 7 All , 875–
9. Civil Procedure Code , s . 206. - Order amending decree in respect of Court fee
in pre -emption suit.-An order as to costs contained in a decree for pre -emption
directed that the pleader's fees should be calculated with reference to the value
ly
of the claim as set forth inthe plaint . Subsequent the Court , professing to
t
ac un de r se ct io n 20 6 of th e Ci vi l Pr oc ed ur e Co de , passed an order directing the
amendment of the decree by calculating the pleader's fees upon the actual value
of the property. Held per Oldfield , J.- When an original decree is amended
under section 206 of the Civil Procedure Code , it as amended is the decree in
the suit ; and an appeal therefore lies from it under the provisions of the section
540 , when the validity of the amendment can be questioned . The matter of
66 case 17
amending a decree under section 206 does not by it self constitute a
within the meaning of section 622 of the Civil Proced ur e Code , but forms part
of the proceedings in the suit in which the decree is made . Held, therefore ,
per Oldfield , J., that where an original decree , which was appealable was
amended by the Court of first instance , under section 206 of the Civil Procedure
t
Code , the High Court had no power to revise such amendmen under section
622 of the Code. Per Mahmood , J. contra. Raghunath Das v. Raj Kumar.
Held on appeal under the Letters Patent that the alteration of the decreer
I. L. R., 2 All . 276 .
wa improper, and was not an amendment of the kind authorized by section 206
s
of the Civil Procedure Code . An order passed under section 206 amending a
decree is a separate adjudication , and is not merely a part of the original decree ,
and such an order is not appealable under section 588 of the Code . Such an
order , therefore , can be revised by the High Court, under section 622. The
Judgment of Oldfield , J., reversed, and that of Mahmood, J., affirmed . Raghu
nath Das v. Râj Kumar. I. L. R. , 7 All . 876 .

10. Civil Proc dure Code 1882 , s . 44.-Order refusing leave tojoin claim - Rejec
tion ofplaint. In a plaint filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge , the plaintiff
claimed to recover possession of a house, together with some grain which was
stored in it. The plaintiff applied to the Subordinate Judge for leave, under
section 44, Rule a, of the Civil Procedure Code , to join the claim for grain
with the claim for possession of the house . The Subordinate Judge refused
leave , and returned the plaint, with directions that the plaintiff should institute
two suits for the recovery of the house and the grain , respectively, in the Court
of Munsif . Held that the Subordinate Judge's order was substantially an order
rejecting the plaint , on the ground that the plaintiff had joined a cause of
action with a suit for recovery of immoveable property ; that , although this
might have been a misapplication of section 44, Rule a of the Code , its effect.
was to reject the plaint ; that such an order was a decree , with reference to the
definition in section 2 , and was appealable as such to the District Judge : and that ,
therefore , a second appeal lay in the case to the High Court, and that Court
was not competent to interfere in revision under section 622. Bandhan Singh
v. Solhu. I. L. R., 8 All . 191 .
108
1884. ] PUNJAB COURTS,
11. Case in which no appeal lies.- Calling for record in case. - Per Pearson, J. Section 70..
Oldfield, J., and Straight, J. -When, under section 622 of Act X of 1877, the
High Court has called for the record of a case in which no appeal lies to it, it may
under that section , pass any order in such case which it might pass if it dealt
with the case as a second appeal under Chapter XLII of that Act. Per Stuart,
C. J.- The High Court may, under that section pass in such case any order,
whether in regard to fact or law, as it thinks proper. In the matter of the
petition of Muhammad v . Hussan . I. L. R., 3 All. , 203.
12. Case in which appeal lies. - A tenure having been sold in execution of an
ex-parte decree for the rent due in respect of it, the judgment-debtor made an
application, to which the purchaser was not made a party, to set aside the
decree, and the decree was set aside. The decree-holder thereupon applied
under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order of the
Munsif. Held that inasmuch as an appeal lay, under section 558 (clause 6),
from the order of the Munsif, the Court ought not to interfere under section 622,
Ram Kristo Roy v. Naik Tara Das. 12 C. L. R., 449 .
13. Interference ofHigh Court where no appeal lies. -When an appeal preferred
to the District Court against an order refusing an application for execution of
a decree for costs was allowed, the High Court, on a second appeal being in
stituted, held that no appeal lay either to the District Court or to the High
Court, but entertained the matter under section 622 of the Civil Procedure
Code, and upheld the order of the District Court. Bhoyrub Chunder Doss v.
Wajedunnissa Khatoon. 6 C. L. R., 234.
14. Objection to attachment of property. - Objection allowed-Costs. - Suit to
establish right.— Appeal. - Refund of costs.- Civil Procedure Code, 1882, ss. 244,
280, 283.-An objection to the attachment of property attached in execution of a
decree was allowed, the decree- holder being ordered to pay the costs of the
objector. The decree-holder thereupon brought a suit to contest the order
allowing objection. He did not seek in this suit relief in respect of the costs .
He obtained a decree setting aside the order allowing the objection. He then
applied to the Court which had made the order to order a refund of the amount
of the costs which had been paid to the objector. Held that the application
being regarded as one with regard to a portion of an order made under section
280 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court was functus in the matter, and
could not make or enforce such an order as was sought for ; and that its order
disallowing the application was not appealable, as it was not one made under
section 244, and if taken to be one passed with reference to section 280, an
appeal was barred by section 283 : the Court therefore would interfere under
section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the matter of the petition of Raghu
Nath Das.-Raghu Nath Das v. Badri Parsad . I. L. R. , 6 All . , 21.
15. Arbitratiou- Illegal procedure on arbitration .-Invalid award.- Where two
of five arbitrators nominated by the parties to a suit and appointed by the Court
had not consented before, and, after appointment, declined to act, and the Court
appointed two arbitrators in their place against the consent of one of the parties
to the suit, and the appointment of the new arbitrators was not warrauted by
the provisions of section 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the order of
reference to such arbitrators, the award made by them, and the decree passed
upon the award were consequently illegal. - Held that the High Court could set
aside the decree under the powers given by section 622 of the Code of Civil
Poocedure. Pugardin Ravutan v. Moidinsa Ravutan. I. L. R., 6 Mad., 414.
16. Arbitration. - Order refusing to file an award. -Where an order is made
refusing to file an award no appeal lies from it , but the High Court can inter
fere under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Mana Vikrama (Maharaja
of Calicut) v. Mallicherry Kristnan Nambudri . I. L. R. , 3 Mad., 68.
17. Arbitration. - Order setting aside award for misconduct of arbitrator.- An
order under section 521 of the Civil Procedure Code, setting aside an award made
on a reference to arbitration in the course of a suit under Chapter XXXVIII
109
Section 70. of the Code, on the ground of the arbitrator's misconduct, is not subject to
revision by the High Court in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by
section 622 of the Code. Chattar Singh v. Lekhraj Singh. I. L. R. , 5 All . 293. ,
18. Arbitration. - Act VIII of 1859, s, 318. —Award made after time allowed
by Court.-An order of reference to arbitration was made on 21st January. Six
weeks' time was allowed for the return of the award. No application was
made for extension of time. The award having been returned on 8th May, the
Court refused to give judgment in accordance with it under section 522 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that it was not valid. The plaintiffs
then petitioned the High Court under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure .
Held that the award was invalid , and the Court had not failed to exercise juris
diction within the meaning of section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Simson v. Venkatagopalam. I. L. R. , 9 Mad . , 475 .
19. Arbitration.- Award. -Error of Procedure. -Relief refused on equitable
grounds.- R. M., party to a suit, having authorised his agent to conduct the suit, 1
the agent consented to the case being referred to arbitration by the Court. The
arbitration was carried on to the knowledge and with the assent of R M. On
an application by R. M., under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to
set aside the award made by the arbitrators, on the grounds (1) that his plead
er had not been authorized in writing, as required by section 506 of the Code,
to apply for arbitration ; and (2) that he himself had not consented to the refer
ence, -Held that, under the circumstances R. M. was not entitled to relief.
Unniraman v Chathan. I. L. R., 9 Mad. , 451 .
20. Attachment.- Power to set aside order for attachment by another Court.- No .
Court, other than a Court of Appeal or High Court acting under section 622 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, can discharge an order of attachment issued by
another Court. Kolasherri Illath Naranian v. Kolasherri Illath Nilakandan
Nambunri. I. L. R., 4 Mad. , 131 .
21. Commission, Order refusing issue of. Civil Procedure Code, ss. 130,387.—
Interlocutory orders.-Under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Interlocutory orders passed under section 367 , refusing application for the issne
of a commission to examine witnesses, or under section 130, directing the produc
tion of documents, cannot be revised. In re Nizam of Hyderabad. I. Î. R., 9
Mad. , 256.
22. Decree construction of. - Order misconstruing decree. -Where in a case of
the execution of a decree in which no second appeal lay to the High Court, the
Appellate Court held, on the construction of the decree, that it awarded interest
on the principal amount of the decree, the High Court under section 622 of Act
X of 1877 holding that the Appellate Court had misconstrued the decree, and
that the decree did not award such interest, modified the order of the Appellate
Court accordingly. In the matter of the petition of Muhammad v. Husain .
I. L. R., 3 All . , 203 .
23. Decree.- Order reversing refusal to set aside ex parte decree. — After a decree
had been made ex parte, the defendant applied to have it set aside. The Sub
ordinate Judge refused the application, but his order was reversed by the
District Judge. Held that no appeal lay, nor would the Court interfere under
section 622 of the Procedure Code. Aubinash Chunder Mookerjee v. Martin.
I. L. R., 8 Calc. , 832 .
24. Discretion, Interference with exercise of.-Collector.-Hereditary Offices Act
(Bom.) III of 1874, s. 10. -Collector's certificate.- The Collector, when granting
a certificate under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (No. III of
1874) , exercises a judicial function, and is subject to the supervision of the
High Court ; but the High Court will not interfere with his descretion, unless
there is violent misuse of authority, obvious bad faith, reckless disregard
or wanton perversion of the law on his part. Collector of Thana v. Bhaskar
Mahadev.Sheth. I. L. R., 8 Bom. 264.
110
1884. ] PUNJAB COUrts.
Section 70.
25. Discretion, Interference with exercise of.—Refusal to grant certificate of sale
under Madras Rent Recovery Act, -Civil Procedure Code, 1882, s. 4.- A sale of
he tenants' interest in certain land having taken place under section 49 and 40
f the Rent Recovery Act, the Deputy Collector refused to issue a sale certifi
ate to the purchaser, on the ground that the sale had been irregularly conduct
d. Held that the High Court had no power to review the proceedings of the
Deputy Collector under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Velli Periya
Mira Ravudhan v. Moidin Padsha Ravuthan. I. L. R., 9 Mad . , 332.
26. Discretion, Interference with exercise of.- Admission by District Court of
Appeal presented out of time. - Where a District Court admittted an appeal present
ed out of time, on the ground that the appellant, having filed an application for
review within the time allowed for an appeal, was entitled to exclude the time
occupied in prosecuting the review.- Held that the High Court could not inter
fere on revision. Vasudeva v. Chinnasami. I. L. R., 7 Mad. , 584.
27. Error in law.-Civil Procedure Code, 1882, s. 32.-Interpleader suit, Appli
cation to be made a party to. - Power ofHigh Court on revision . - Erroneous construc
tion of Act.-A merely erroneous construction of the provisions of an Act is not
a ground for relief under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. M. J.
instituted an interpleader suit against two rival claimants, N. and A. , in respect
of a sum of Rs . 20,000. R. subsequently claimed a portion of the money and
applied to be made a party to the suit, but was opposed by M. J. and N.
The Subordinate Judge refused the application, on the ground that, though it
was probably made under section 32 of the Civil Procedure Code R's right or claim
not having been admitted by the plaintiff, nor asserted to his knowledge, she
was not a necessary party under the special provisions of Chapter XXXIII of
the Civil Procedure Code, and referred her to a regular suit. Held that the order,
though based upon an erroneous construction of the provisions of section 32 of the
Code, did not come within the scope of section 622, inasmuch as it could not be
said that the Subordinate Judge had failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in
him by law. Rabbaba Khanum v. Noorjehan Begum alias Dalim Shahiba.
I. L. R., 13 Calc. , 90.
28. Error in law,-Dismissal ofsuit by Small Cause Court. -Legal Proctitioners'
Act. A Small Cause Court having dismissed a suit brought by a pleader to
recover from his client a fee claimed for the conduct of a suit , on the ground
that such a suit would not lie, because it was based on an oral contract, and such
contract could not be enforced by reason of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners'
Act, the High Court under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reversed
the decree of the Small Cause Court. Rama v. Kunji . I. L. R. , 9 Mad., 375 .
29. Execution of decree. -Application for execution of decree.- Civil Procedure
Code, 1877, s. 244. - Registration Act, 1866, s. 53.— An application was made to
a District Munsif on the 16th July 1877 to issue execution on a decree, dated
6th November 1869, obtained on a bond registered under section 53 of the
Registration Act of 1866. He made an order refusing execution, the decree
being one passed, not in a regular suit, but in a summary suit, and governed
by the period of limitation prescribed by article 166, schedule II, Act IX of
1871. On appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the order of the Munsif,
holding that article 167, schedule II of Act IX of 1871 , applied. Held that,
under section 622 of Act X of 1877, the High Court could not.interfere, as the
Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Suryapragasa Rau
v. Vaisya Sannyasi Razu. I. L. R., 1 Mad., 401 .
30. Execution ofdecree.—Civil Procedure Code, 1882, s. 335- Resistance to
execution of decree.-An order under section 335 of the Civil Procedure Code is
subject to revision by the High Court under section 622 of that Code. Shaiva
Nathaji v. Joma Kashinath, I. L. R., 7 Bom., 341 , followed. Sheoraj Singh .
Banwari Das. I. L. R., 6 All . , 172 .
31. Jurisdiction, Exercise of.-Erroneous decision in suit tried with Jurisdiction.
Act XII of 1879, 8. 92.-A Court that has decided a suit over which it had juris
111
Section 70.
diction, cannot, only on the ground that it has arrived at a wrong decision, be
said to have exercised its jurisdiction illegally, or with material irregularity,
within the meaning of section 622 of Act X of 1877, as amended by section 92
of Act XII of 1879. Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh. I. L. R., 11 ,
Cal. 6 : L. R. 11 I. A. 237.
32. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of. -Civil Procedure Code, 1882, s. 320
-Transfer of decree to Collector for execution.-— Rules made by Local Government
A decree passed by a Subordinate Judge upon a bond, in which certain immov
able property was mortgaged, was, in accordance with the rules made by the
Local Government under section 320 of the Civil Procedure Code, transferred
to the Collector for execution. A sale in execution took place, and the Collector
gave the purchaser a certificate of the sale. Upon this certificate the 1
purchaser applied to the Subordinate Judge to give him possession of a larger
amount of property than that specified in the certificate, and, upon the refusal
of the Court to do so, applied to the Collector to amend the certificate .
The amendment having been made as desired, the purchaser again applied
to the Subordinate Judge, for possession of the amount claimed by him, and
the Subordinate Judge again rejected the application, holding that only the lesser
amount had been sold in execution of the decree. The High Court held that
the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to decide the question . Held also that,
inasmuch as the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to decide the question, and
inasmuch as, even if his decision were wrong, the purchaser had a remedy by
bringing a regular suit, the matter did not fall within section 622 of the Civil
Procedure Code, so as to call for the interference of the High Court in revision .
Shivanathaji v. Joma Kashinath, I. L. R., 7 Bom. , 341 ; and Amir Hussan
Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh, I. L. R., 11 Calc., 6, referred to. Sundar Das
v. Mansa Ram. I. L. R. , 7 All. , 407.
33. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of. - Limitation.- A Court which

admits an application to set aside a decree exparte after the true period of limi
tation has expired, acts in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with
material irregularity within the meaning of 622 of the Civil Procedure Code ,
and such action may therefore be made the subject of revision by the High
Court under that section. Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh, I. L. R., 11
Calc., 6 ; and Magni Ram v. Jiwa Lall, I. L. R. , 7. All.. 336 , commented on
by Mahmood, J. Per Mahmood, J.-The term of " jurisdiction " as used by
their Lordships of the Privy Council in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh,
must be understood in its broad legal sense signifying the power of adminis
tering justice according to the means which the law has provided and subject
to the limitations imposed by the law upon judicial authority. Har Parsad v.
Jafar Ali. I. L. R., 7 All ., 345.
34. Jurisdiction, Question not relating to.- Alleged errors in decision of suit for
pre-emption. In a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption in respect of a usu
fructuary mortgage of immoveable property, the plaintiffs alleged that the con
sideration money was less than that stated in the mortgage deed . The Court
of first instance gave the plaintiffs a decree for possession of the property, on
payment of an amount less than that mentioned in the deed, and this decree
.
was affirmed on appeal. The mortgagees appealed to the High Court on the
following grounds " ( 1) Because it was for the respondents to prove that any
portion of the consideration was not paid. (ii ) Because the lower Court has
not considered the evidence of the appellants . (iii) Because the finding of the
lower Court is based on conjecture." Held on the question whether, such
grounds not being grounds on which a second appeal is allowed by Chapter XLII
of the Civil Procedure Code, the appeal should not proceed rather under Chapter
XLVI, section 622 of that Code, that the appeal could not proceed under
section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, in consequence of the decision of the
Privy Council in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh , I. L. R., 11 Calc., 6,
112
1884.] PUNJAB COURTS,
that only questions relating to the jurisdiction of the Court could be entertained Section 70.
under that section. Magni Ram v. Jiwa Lal. I. L. R. , 7 All. , 336 .
35. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of. - Second class Subordinate Judge
--Subject-matter of suit under Rs. 5,000 and within jurisdiction . —Amount of decree
with accumulations of interest exceeding Rs. 5,000. -Application for execution.
Second appeal. ----- The plaintiffs obtained a decree in the Court of a second class
Subordinate Judge for a sum less than Rs. 5,000, which with accumulation of
interest subsequently exceeded Rs. 5,000. The plaintiffs applied in execution to
recover the total amount. The application was rejected by the Subordinate
Judge, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction under section 24 of
Act XIV of 1869. On appeal the District Judge made an order confirming
the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal in
the High Court. Held that no second appeal lay to the High Court from such
an order ; but, as the Subordinate Judge was wrong in refusing to exercise his
jurisdiction, the High Court would give relief under the extraordinary jurisdic
tion conferred by section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code (XIV of 1882) . The
subject-matter of the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge,
and his jurisdiction continued, whatever might be the result of the suit, in all
such matters in the suit as were within his cognisance, amongst which were
matters in execution in the suit. The mere circumstance that the amount
actually due by process of accumulation exceeded Rs. 5,000 could not oust him
from the jurisdiction he hitherto had over the suit. Shamrav Pandoji v .
Niloji Ramaji. I. L. R., 10 Bom . , 200.
36. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of. —Error of Mamlatdar's Court.
Possessory suit in a Mumlatdar's Court.- The opponents had obtained a decree
for the possession of certain land against the brother and father of the
applicants in the Court of the Mamlatdar at Karad, in the Satara
district. The applicants were not parties to the suit. The decree was
executed, and the opponents were put into possession . Thereupon the appli
cants, on the 19th May 1884, presented a petition in the Mamlatdar's Court,
under section 4 of Bombay Act III of 1876, alleging that they had been
in actual possession of the lands and had been ousted from them in execution
of the decree, and praying that they might be again put into possession. The
Mamlatdar was of opinion that the matter was resjudicata, and dismissed the
petition. He relied on a circular of the Executive Government as his authority.
The applicants applied to the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Held that it was not a case for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of
the High Court. The Mamlatdar was , no doubt, guilty of a formal error. In
the exercise of his judicial functions he was bound to be governed by the law
as he understood it, or as it had been expounded by superior judicial authority,
not as it was understood or expounded by unjudicial persons . This , however,
was merely an irregularity on the part of the Mamlatdar not apparently involv
ing an injustice to the applicants, who might bring a suit on their title if they
had a title. Nana Bayaji v. Paudurang Vasudev. I. L. R., 9 Bom. , 97.
37. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of.-Civil Procedure Code, 1882 , 8 .
315. - When an order was passed under section 315 of the Code of Civil Proce
dure directing refund to a purchaser in execution of a decree in a suit in which
a second appeal lay to the High Court, -Held that, under section 622 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court could set aside the order, because, the
judgment-debtor having been found to have a saleable interest, the lower Court
had no power to order refund. Kunhamed v. Chathu. I. L. R. , 9 Mad., 437 .
38. Jurisdiction , Interference with exercise of.—Excess ofjurisdiction- Arbitra
tors exceeding jurisdiction. - In any case where there is a disregard of the law
amounting to an excess of jurisdiction, or a perversion of the purposes of the
Legislature, the High Court will interfere under its extraordinary jurisdiction
where no other remedy is available. Dagdusa Tilakchand v. Bhukan Govind
Shet. I. L. R. , 9 Bom., 82.
113
PUNJAB COURTs, [AOT XVIII
Beotion 70. 39. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of. -Civil Procedure Code, 1882, s.
492 -Civil Procedure Code, 1859, s. 92. - Injunction to stay sale pending suit to
establish title.-A claim by R, to certain property which had been attached by B.
in the course of execution proceedings in the Court of the First!Subordinate Judge
of Dacca having been rejected, R. instituted a suit in the Court of the Second
Subordinate Judge to establish his title to the property. In that suit he applied
to the Court in which his suit was brought for an injunction under section 492
of the Civil Procedure Code to stay the sale of the property attached by B.
in the execution proceedings ; but that application was rejected and R. there
upon applied for and obtained from the Court of the First Subordinate Judge
an order staying the sale of the attached property until the hearing of the suit
brought by him to establish his right to it. Held, in an application under
section 622 of the Code to set the latter order aside, that section 492 of the
Code of 1882 has, and was intended to have, a wider application than section 92
of Act VIII. of 1859 had, and provides a remedy where property is " in danger
of being wrongfully sold," and if the circumstances justified it, an order could
have been obtained under that section from the Court of the Second Subordinate
Judge to stay the sale. There being this alteration in the law, and such a
remedy provided, and no express provision in the Code for stay of execution
by Court executing a decree on the application of a third party, the order of the
First Subordinate Judge was made without jurisdiction, and should be set
aside. In the matter of the petition of Brojendra Kumar Rai Chowdhari .
Brojendra Kumar Chowdhari e . Rup Lall Doss . I. L. R., 12 Cal . , 515.
40. Jurisdiction - Sale set aside on account of irregularity only. -Where a
Court professing to act under section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, set aside
a sale in execution of a decree without proof of substantial injury having been
suffered by the applicant, -Held that such order was passed without jurisdic
tion within the meaning of section 622 of the said Code. Lakshmana v. Najim
uddin. I. L. R. , 9 Mad., 145.
41. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of.-Possession given to purchaser.

Restitution sought in execution by judgment-debtor- Remedy by suit.- Certain
land having been attached in execution of a decree by a District Court, S. the
represntative of the Judgment-debtor, preferred a claim to the land in his
own right, which was rejected, and the land was subsequently sold to a strangr,
and the sale was confirmed on the 23rd February 1884. On the same
date the High Court, on appeal by S. set aside the order rejecting his claim.
The District Court, in ignorance of the order of the High Court, having subse
quently put the purchaser in possession of the land, S. applied for restitution,
but his petition was rejected by the District Judge. On an application under
section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code to revise the Judge's order, on the ground
that he refused to exercise his jurisdiction to restore S. to possession ,-Held that
the order of the District Judge confirming the sale was passed without juris
diction, and that the District Judge had no power to restore possession to S.
The High Court therefore could not interfere under section 622. The remedy
of S. was by a separate suit. Subbay v. Yellamma. I. L, R., 9 Mad. , 130.
42. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of. - Trial of case cognisable only by
Small Cause Court. - S. instituted a suit against T. in the Court of an Assistant
Collector of the first class, who dismissed the suit. On appeal by S. the
District Court gave her a decree. On second appeal by T. the High Court held
that, as the suit was one of the nature cognisable in a Court of Small Causes, a
second appeal would not lie in the case, and dismissed it. T. thereupon applied to
the High Court to set aside, under the provisions of section 622 of Act X of 1877,
the proceedings of both the lower Courts, on the ground that both those Courts
had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them by law. Held that the High
Court was competent to entertain such application and to quash the proceedings
of both the lower Courts, under the provisions of section 622 of Act X of 1877,
and the proceedings of both those Courts should be quashed. Observations by
114
1884. ] PUNJAB COUNTS,
Stuart, C. J., on the powers of revision of the High Court under section 622, Section 70.
of Act X of 1877. Sarnam Tewari v. Sakina Bibi. I. L. R. , 3 All . , 417.
43. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of.- Beng. Reg . XVIIof 1806.- Re
demption of mortgage.- After a mortgage had been foreclosed under the provisions
of Regulation XVII of 1806, the representative of the mortgagor deposited the
mortgage-money in Court. The District Judge ordered that the money should
be paid to the mortgagee, on the ground that the mortgagor had not been per
sonally served with the notice required by section 8 of that Regulation, and
that it did not appear that she had been aware of the foreclosure proceedings.
The District Judge subsequently ordered the mortgagee, who was in possession
of the mortgaged property under the terms of the mortgage, to surrender the
property. The mortgagee applied to the High Court to revise these orders
under section 622 of Act X of 1877. Held that the application was entertain
able under the provisions of that section, and that the orders of the District
Judge were made without jurisdiction and should be set aside. Hazari Lal v.
Kheru Rai. I. L. R. , 3 All., 576.
44. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of.- Improper refusal of jurisdiction.

-Where a Munsif improperly refused to investigate a claim under sections 278
and 280, Civil Procedure Code, 1877 , he was held to have refused to exercise a
jurisdiction he was bound to exercise, and the Court set aside his order and
ordered the investigation to be made. Jameela v. Luchman Panday. 4 C.
L. R., 74.
45. Appeal against appellate decree by party to suit who did not appeal against
original decree.- S. having mortgaged land to K. as security for a debt, sold it
to V. , who undertook to pay the debt. K., alleging that O. had undertaken
either to make V. pay the debt or to execute a mortgage of his own land to
secure its repayment, and that V. had dispossessed him, sued S., V. , and C. to
recover the debt by sale of the land mortgaged, mesne profits from V. , and costs
from S., and V., and C. The District Munsif decreed payment against S. of
mesne profits, and, in default of payment by S. , a sale of the land against V.;
and costs against S. , V. , and C. V. and C. appealed against the decree. The
Subordinate Judge found that the debt had been paid and held that, even if
the debt had not been paid, K. had no cause of action against V. or S., but, if,
at all, against C., and dismissed the suit as against V. The Subordinate Judge
also held that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decree against S. ,
and saw no reason to interfere with the decree against C. S. appealed against
this decree. Held that even if S. was not entitled to appeal in order to have
the decree against him set aside, the error of the Subordinate Judge could be
corrected under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a direction to
exercise discretionary power given by section 544 of the said Code. Seshadri
. Krishnan. L. L. R., 8 Mad. , 192.
46. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of.—Act XL of 1858 (Beng. Minors

Act,) . 3.- Refusal to admit person with certificate of administration to defend suit
on behalf of minor. -Under section 3 of the Bengal Minors Act (XL of 1858), the
Court has no power to refuse to admit a person who , has obtained a certificate
of administration under the Act, to defend a suit on the minors' behalf, as
guardian of such minor. Where a Subordinate Judge had so acted. -Held that
the High Court had no power to revise his order under section 622 of the Civil
Procedure Code. Baldeo Das v. Govind Shankar. I. L. R. , 7 All., 914.
47. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of -Decree refusal to amend.

Where a Court improperly refused to amend a decree, which was at variance with
the judgment.-Held that, in so acting, the Court had acted in the exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, within the meaning of
section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and its order was consequently sub
•
115
Section 70.
ject to revision under that section. Balmokund v . Sheojatan Lal. I. L. R.,
6 All. , 125.
48. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of.- Material irregularity affecting

merits of case. The words a material irregularity " in section 622 of the
Code of Civil Procedure include an irregularity of Procedure materially affect
ing the merits of the case. An application of a section of the Code to a case to
which it does not apply is a material irregularity within the meaning of the
section. Mangi Ram v. Jiwa Lall, I. L. R. 7. All ., 336, observed on. Sew Bux
Bogla v. Shib Chunder Sen I. L. R. , 13 Calc. , 225.
49. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of "Illegality." — "Material irregu

larity."-A suit was instituted in the Court of Munsif to recover from the
defendants a sum of Rs. 49, being the amount due under a bond, and which the
plaintiffs alleged had been recovered on her account by one of the defendants
from the obligor. The Munsif being of opinion that the determination of the
plaintiff's right to the bond, involved the question of her heirship to the estate
of a certain deceased person, and that consequently the case before him raised
a question affecting the title to property exceeding Rs. 1,000 in value, held
that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and accordingly returned the
plaint for presentation to the proper Court under section 57 of the Civil Procedure
Code. Held by the Full Bench, that the Munsif had acted upon an erroneous
view, as the only subject-matter of the suit was Rs. 49 ; that he had conse
quently failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him, and the High Court was
therefore competent to revise his order under section 622 of the Civil Procedure
Code. The result of Amir Hussan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh, I. L. R., 11 Calc. , 6,
and Mangi Ram v. Jiwa Lal , I. L. R. , 7 All. , 336, is that the questions to which
section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code applies are questions of jurisdiction only.
The meaning of the decision of the Privy Council in the former case is that,
if the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit, it has jurisdiction to
hear and determine all questions which arise in it, either of fact or law, and
that the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 622 to inquire into the
correctness of its viewof the law, or the soundness of its findings as to facts ; but
that, when no appeal is provided, its decision on questions of both kinds is final.
Per Straight and Tyrrell. JJ.- Clauses (a) and (b) of section 584 specifying the
grounds on which a second appeal lies to the High Court, embody what section
622 refers to in the word " illegally,', that is to say, to cases where the Court
below has, in the exercise of its jurisdiction , come to a decision which is con
trary to some specified law or usage having the force of law, or failed to deter
mine some material issue of law or usage. Clause (c) of section 584 indicates
the meaning of the words " material irregularity " in section 622- i. e. , some
material irregularity in procedure, " which may possibly have produced error
or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits." Muhammad v. Hussain.
I. L. R. , 3 All ., 203, referred to. Badami Kuar v. Dinu Rai . I. L. R., 8 All ., 111 .
50. Jurisdiction. Interference with exercise of.-Meaning of "jurisdiction." —

Amendment of decree. - Civil Procedure Code, s. 206.- Act XV of 1877, sch. II
No. 178.-In execution of a decree for partition of immoveable property passed in
1872, a dispute arose as to the execution in reference to a portion of the property,
and in 1881 it was finally decided that the decree was defective in its descrip
tion of the property, and therefore incapable of execution. In May 1885, on
application by the decree-holder, the Court passed an order amending the decree,
the amendment having reference to an arithmetical error. The judgment
debtor applied to the High Court for revision of this order, on the grounds
that the amendment of the decree was barred by limitation, and that the decree
itself being barred by limitation and finally pronounced to be incapable of execu
tion, the Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction in amending it. Held that the
application for revision must be rejected. Per Oldfield J., that the High Court
had no power to entertain the application under section 622 of the Civil Proce
116
dure Code, with reference to the decision of the Privy Council in Amir Hussan Section 70.
Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh , I. L. R. , 11 Calc., 6. and of the Full Bench in
Badami Kaur v. Dinu Rai , I. L. R., 8 All ., 111 ; and further that, upon the facts
stated, the Court ought not to interfere. Per Mahmood J., that the Court was
not precluded from entertaining the application for revision under section 622 of
the Civil Procedure Code. Amir Hussan Khan v . Sheo Bakhsh Singh , I. L. R.,
11 Calc., 6 ; Badami Kaur v . Duni Rai, I. L. R. , 8 All . , 111 ; Raghunath Das v .
Raj Kumar, I. L. R., 7, All., 876 ; Surta v. Ganga, I. L. R., 7 All., 411 ; Magni
Ram v. Jiwa Lall, I. L. R. , 7 All . , 336 ; Har Prasad v. Jafar Ali, I. L. R. ,~~ 7
All., 345, referred to. Bhagwant Singh v Jagesher Singh. Weekly Notes, All .
1886, p. 57 ; and Abu Said Khan v. Hamid-un-nissa, Weekly Notes, All., 1886,
p. 39. dissented from . The meaning of the term "jurisdiction " used in section
622 of the Civil Procedure Code must not be confined to the territorial or pecu
niary limits of the powers of a Court, or to the nature of the class to which the
case belongs. It implies, in addition to questions of these kinds, the presence or
absence of a positive authority or power conferred by the law upon tribunals in
cases which satisfy the other conditions referred to. In framing the section the
Legislature gave to the High Court power to interfere with the action of subor
dinate tribunals in cases where there is no remedy, either by appeal or other
wise, and where those tribunals have either exceeded or wrongly declined to
exercise the authority, the power, and the jurisdiction which the law confers
upon them, or, under the pretence of exercising such authority, power, and
jurisdiction, have acted against a positive prohibition of the law. Combe v.
dwards, L. R. , 3 P. D., 103 ; and Cropps v. Durden, 1 Smith's L. C., 8th Ed . ,
711, referred to. Held, also, per Mahmood , J. , that in the present case the
Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 206 of
the Code, that it did so entertain it, and that in making the amendment its
action could not be regarded as beyond the limits of its legal power and authori
ty, so as to render it open to the objection of the exercise of jurisdiction " ille
• gally or with material irregularity," within the meaning of section 622. Lucas
v. Stephen, 9 W. R. , 301 ; Öomanund Roy, v. Suttish Chunder Roy, 9 W. R.,
471 ; Zuhoor Hossein v. Syedun, 11 W. R., 142 ; and Goluck Chunder Mussant
v. Ganga Narain Mussant, 20 W. R. III referred to. Dhan Singh . Basant
Singh. I. L. R., 8 All. , 519.
51. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of-Alleged irregularity by District

Judge in decision of suits. -A. and B. both of whom set up a claim to certain
land, brought separate rent suits against the tenants. In none of these suits
did the amount claimed exceed Rs. 100. After the institution of the rent suits
A. sued B. to establish his title to the land in dispute. The District Judge
before whom the rent suits came on appeal allowed them to stand over until
the decision in the suit between A. and B. The suit was decided in favour of
B., and the Judge then decided the rent suits instituted by B. in his favour, and
dismissed the suits instituted by A. Held that there was no such irregularity
on the part of the District Judge in the course which he pursued, of making
his decision in the rent suits depend upon the decision in the suit to establish
title, as would justify the Court in interfering under section 622 of the Civil
Procedure Code. Doorga Narain Sen v. Ram Lall Chhutar. I. L. R., 7 Calc.,
330. S. C. Durga Narain Misser v. Gobordhun Ghose. 9 C. L. R. , 86 .
52. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of - Sale in execution of decree

against estate of deceased.- Suit against representatives of deceased husband's estate.—
Order releasing property from attachment. In 1862 a suit for mesne profits was
brought against certain persons as being the heirs of one Romanath Lahiry,
deceased, among whom were his widow and two infant sons. During the pen
dency of this suit the two infant sons died, and the widow was made a defend
ant as representing the estate of her deceased sons. The suit was decreed in
favour of the plaintiffs in 1875 : and on the plaintiffs applying for execution
the widow objected that 5-16ths of the properties , against which execution was
117
Section 70.
sought, was the property of her adopted son, whom she alleged to have adopted
in 1874. The adopted son was not made a party to the suit : the objection was
overruled, bat the same objection was taken by the adopted son through his
natural father as his guardian and next friend, and the Court released the
5-16ths share from attachment, and allowed the objection. Against this order
some of the plaintiffs appealed, but pending the appeal another of the plaintiffs
applied to the High Court, under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
to have the order set aside . The Court refused to interfere with the order,
inasmuch as there appeared to be no material irregularity therein. Sotish
Chunder Lahiry . Nil Comul Lahiry. I. L. R. , 11 Calc., 45.
53. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of. - Civil Procedure Code, 1882, s.
30-Party added after decree.-A Subordinate Judge having permitted the junior
widow of a Hindu to be made a party to the proceedings in execution of a decree
obtained by a senior widow against a debtor of their deceased husband, the
High Court declined to interfere under section 622 of the Code of Civil Proce
dure. Lingammal v. Chinna Venkatammal. I. L. R. , 6 Mad ., 227.
54. Jurisdiction, Interference with exercise of.-Death of sole defendant.—

Application to add representative.- In a suit for the recovery of land against a sole
defendant, the latter died before the hearing. Sixty-three days after the death of
the defendant the plaintiff applied to the Court to enter on the record the legal
representative of the deceased defendant. Onthe 22nd November 1880 the Court
rejected the application under the provisions of article 171B of Act XV of 1877,
and ordered the suit to abate. On the same day the plaintiff applied to the
Court to set aside the order directing the suit to abate, but the application was
also rejected on the 20th September 1881. On appeal to the High Court,
Held that no appeal lay against the latter order, and an appeal against the
order of November 1880 was out of time, but that the High Court would take
cognisance of the case under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Benode
Mohini Chowdhrian v. Sharat Chunder De Chowdhry. I. L. R., 8 Calc., 837 ;
10 C. L. R. , 449 ; 12 C. L. R. , 421 .
55. Transfer of interest pending suit.-Lispendens. -Application to bring trans

feree upon the record.- Civil Procedure Code, s. 244.- A decree of the High Court,
giving possession of certain shares in a bank to the plaintiff, R., was reversed
on appeal by the Privy Council . The defendant then applied to the Court of
first instance to order restitution of the shares, which had been realised by the
plaintiff. Upon being ordered to produce the shares, R. made an application
to the Court, professedly under section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, in
which he alleged that, pending the appeal to the Privy Council, he had trans
ferred the shares to G., his counsel in the case, who had failed to restore them,
and he prayed " that the said person might be brought upon the record, and
that execution for recovery of the said shares might be given gainst him."
The Court passed an order upon this application, calling on G. to show cause
why he should not be called upon to restore the shares made over to him by R.,
and he thereupon filed an answer denying that he was the custodian of the
shares, and alleging that he was their purchaser for value. The Court passed
an order directing that G.'s name should be placed on the record, so that the
decree might be executed against him. Held that the application by R. was
meant to be and actually was one praying that in respect of the scrip, restitution
of which was being enforced against him, the person to whom some interest in
it, more or less, had come pending the suit, might, in addition to himself, in so
far as such interest had passed from him, be brought under the operation of the
execution proceedings ; that this was an application under section 372 of the
Civil Procedure Code ; and the order passed on it being appealable under sec
tion 588 (21) , was not open to revision by the High Court under section 622.
Raynor v. Mussoorie Bank. I. L. R., 7 All ., 681 .
118
1884. ] PUNJAB COURTS,
56. Interlocutory order. -Rejection of application to appeal as apauper.-An Section 70.

application for permission to appeal as a pauper was presented , not by the appli
cant personally, but by his pleader, and was on that ground rejected . Held on
an application to the High Court for revision, that section 622 of Act X of 1877
did not apply to a proceeding of so purely an interlocutory a character as men
tioned in section 592, and such application therefore could not be entertained .
Harsaran Singh v. Muhammad Raza . I. L. R., 4 All. , 91 .
57. Rejection of application to sue as a pauper.-Refusal on ground of suit being
barred. An application to sue as a pauper having been refused, on the ground that
the suit was barred by limitation, the High Court, on revision, permitted the
applicant to renew his application to the Court below. The Subordinate Judge
verbally rejected this second application, stating that he would deliver a written
judgment. Before the written judgment was delivered, the applicant offered to
pay usual court fees (although not actually tendering them at the time) , and
asked that the petition might be taken as a plaint filed on the date of the first
application ; this offer was mentioned and refused in the written judgment. Held
on the case coming up to the High Court under section 622 of Act X of 1877,
that the circumstances of the case were not such as would justify the Court in
interfering under that section . Ram Sahai Singh v. Mani Ram . 1. L. R. , 5
Calc., 807 : 6 C. L. R., 223.
58. Rejection of application to sue in formâ pauperis.— “Right to sue .” —Limi
tation. Where an application for leave to sue as a pauper was rejected with refer
ence to section 407 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the claim
was barred by limitation, and therefore the applicant had no right to sue. Held
by the Full Bench that the Court had acted within its powers, and that its
jurisdiction not having been exercised illegally or with material irregu
larity, the High Court had no power of interference in revision under
section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Amir Hussan Khan v . Sheo Bakhsh
""
Singh, I. L. R., 11 Calc. , 6, referred to. Per Mahmood, J.-The word 66 case
as used in section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code should be understood in its
broadest and most ordinary sense, including all adjudications which might con
stitute the subject of appeal or revision subject to the rules governing the exer
cise of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction respectively ; and it compre
hends adjudications under section 407, which fall under the same general cat
gory of adjudications as the rejection of an ordinary plaint under section 53 or
section 54. Phul Singh v. Jagan Nath. Weekly Notes, All . , 1882 , p . 39 ; Bhul
neshri Dat v. Bidiadhis, Weekly Notes , All., 1882 p. 69; and Sital Sahu r . Bachu
Ram, Weekly Notes, All. , 1882, p. 92, referred to . Also per Mahmood J - The
provisions of section 407 must be interpreted strictly, inasmuch as they operate
in derogation of the right possessed by every litigant to seek the aid of the
courts of justice ; and an exercise of jurisdiction under that section, when such
exercise of jurisdiction is open to the objection of illegality or material irregu
larity, would form a proper subject of revision by the High Court. Har Prasad
v. Jafar Ali, I. L. R. , 7 All. , 345 ; and Ammal v . Nayudu I. L. R. , 4 Mad ., 323,
referred to. Chattarpal Singh v. Raja Ram, I. L. Ř. , 7 All . , 661 .
59. Res judicata, Erroneous decision on. -A wrong decision on a question of
res judicata is not a subject for the interference of the High Court under section
622 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act XIV of 1882. Hari Bhikaji v. Naro
Vishvanath. I. L. R. , 9 Bom. , 432.
60. Sale in execution of decree.- Fraud.- Setting aside order confirming sale.
-The purchaser at a sale by public auction succeeded , by the exercise of fraud
and collusion with the agent of the execution -creditors (though without the
creditors ' personal knowledge), in becoming the purchaser at a depreciated value.
There was no material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale. Held
that the High Court had power under section 622 of Act X of 1877 to rescind
the order made by the Court of first instance confirming the sale. Subhaji Rau
v . Srinivasa Rau. I. L. R., 2 Mad., 264.
$19
Section 70. 61. Sale in execution of decree. - Pre-emption.- Civil Procedure Code, 1877, 88.
310, 311.— Locus standi ofpre-emptor in execution proceedings.—A person claiming to·
be a co-sharer in certain undivided immoveable property, a share of which had
been sold in execution of a decree, objected to the confirmation of the sale in
favour of the person recorded as the auction purchaser, and prayed that it might
be confirmed in his favour, with reference to the provisions of section 310 of
the Civil Procedure Code. The Court disallowed the objection and confirmed
the sale in favour of the auction -purchaser. The objector thereupon applied
to the High Court for revision of the order of the lower Court under section
622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Held that, having been allowed to object
to the confirmation of the sale, and treated as a party to the proceeding held
therein, it was competent for him to make such application, notwithstanding
that he was not one of the persons mentioned in section 311 of the Code ; that
there being no appeal in the case, so far as he was concerned, the High Court
was competent to entertain the application under section 622 of the Code ; but
that, as he was not one of the persons who were competent to avail himself of
the provisions of section 311 , he had no locus standi to justify his application
to the lower Court, and the application for revision must therefore be dismissed .
Bisheshar Kuar v. Hari Singh. I. L. R. , 5 All . , 42.
62. Distribution of assets.-Application of decree-holder struck off -Where a
rateable distribution was ordered among decree-holders whose applications had
been struck off the file prior to realisation of assets.-Held that it was open to
the party injured to apply to the High Court under section 622 to reverse the
order. Tiruchittambala Chetti v. Seshayyangar. I. L. R., 4 Mad. , 383 .
63. Execution proceedings. - Rateable distribution.-Application for further
execution.--Notice.- A . and subsequently B. obtained decrees against X, in exe
cution of which the same land was attached, and B. obtained an order for rate
able distribution. Neither decree was satisfied . A. then applied for attach
ment of other property, and the sale was fixed for 28th September. On 25th
September B. filed a petition for further attachment under sections 250, 274,
and also a petition for rateable distribution under section 295 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The District Judge rejected the application for execution as
being too late, and then the application under section 295, because no applica
tion for execution was pending. Held, on appeal, that the petition for execu
tion was wrongly rejected, but that the High Court could not, under section
622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revise the order rejecting the application
under section 295 for rateable distribution . Venkataraman v. Mahalingayyan.
I. L. R., 9 Mad. , 508.
64. Sanction for prosecution.-Act X of 1872, Criminal Procedure Code, ss.
468, 469.-The discretionary power of a Civil Court, before or against which
an offence mentioned in section 468 or 469 of Act X of 1872 is alleged to have
been committed, to grant or withhold sanction to the prosecution for such
offence, is not subject to revision by the High Court under section 622 of Act
X of 1877. In the matter of the petition of Madho Prasad. I. L. R., 3 All . ,
508.
65. Power of revision over Small Cause Court, Calcutta. -Alleged excess of
jurisdiction by Small Cause Court.-Trespass to immoveable property. The plain
tiff brought a suit in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes to recover damages for
trespass to certain immoveable property of which he proved he was in posses
sion. The defendant contended that such a suit was one for the determination
of a right to or interest in immoveable property, and was therefore not main
tainable in the Small Cause Court. The Small Cause Court decided the case
and the High Court, on an application under section 622, granted a rule to
show cause why the judgment should not be set aside as being without juris
diction. Held, on such application, that the Court had jurisdiction to enter
tain such a suit . Peary Mohun Ghosaul v. Harran Chunder Gangooly. I. L.
R., 11 Calc., 261 ,
120
66. Civil Procedure Code, 1882, -s. 43.- Cause of action.-Splitting a Section 70.
claim.-Separate suits for rent duefor successive years.- Petitioners filed two suits
in a Small Cause Court on the same day to recover rent due for two successive
years under the same lease. The sum of the two claims exceeded the pecuniary
limit of the Court's jurisdiction . The suit for the rent of the first year was
dismissed under section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that
the claim ought to have been included in the suit for the second year's rent. Held
in an application under section 622 to the High Court to set aside the order,
that although section 43 did prevent the maintenance of the two suits, yet as
the petitioners had no intention of abandoning either claim, the proper course
was to allow them to withdraw both suits and file a fresh suit in a competent
Court. Alagu v. Abdoola . I. L. R. , 8 Mad ., 147 .
67. Civil Procedure Code, s . 25, Order under, for transfer of suit.—Held that
an order under section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, transferring a suit in
which an appeal would lie from the decree made therein, was not subject to
revision by the High Court under section 622. Farid Ahmad v. Dulari Bibi.
I. L. R., 6 All. , 233.
68. Court Fees Act, 1870, s. 6, and sch. II, art. 17 (1) .- Stamp Valuation by
Subordinate Court.-Practice. - Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882, ) s. 622,
and Bom. Reg. II 1827, s. 5.—A decision by a Subordinate Court on a question
of valuation, determining the amount of a Court fee, is, notwithstanding its
declared finality, subject to revision by the High Court under section 622
of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) and section 5 of Regulation II
of 1827. Vithal Krishna v. Balkrishna Janardan. I. L. R. , 10 Bom. , 610.
69. Order dismissing suit for insufficient stamp. In a suit instituted upon a
ten-rupee stamp for an account, the removal of the original trustee and the
appointment of a new trustee, where the value of the trust property was 5 lakhs
of rupees, the Court below directed that the stamp should be calculated upon
the value of the trust property, and ordered that the deficiency should be made
up within a particular time. Before the time expired a rule was obtained from
the High Court under section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code to show cause
why the order should not be set aside. Held that the rule must be discharged,
inasmuch as if the suit had been dismissed on the expiration of the time limited,
on the ground that the relief was not properly valued, there would have been
an appeal. Omrao Mirza v. Jones. 12 C. L. R., 148.
70. Discretion of Court exercised with jurisdiction.- Section 622 of the Code is
one of very limited operation ; and where a lower Court has jurisdiction to decide.
a question of law or fact, the High Court has no power to interfere on revision.
with the decision on those questions. Amir Hussan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh
I. L. R., 11 Calc. 6, followed . Krishna Mohini Dossee v. Kedarnath Chucker
butty. I. L. R. , 15 Calc. , 446.
71. Decision by competent Court.-A decision by the judgment ofa competent

Court, whether right or wrong, which by law is final and without appeal, where
the Court has not acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, or with
material irregularity, cannot be set aside under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure
Code. Muhammad Yusuf Khan v . Abdul Rahman Khan, I. L. R. , 16 Calc ., 749:
L. R. 16 I, A. 104.
72. Bengal Tenancy Act VIII of 1885 ) s . 174-Deposit, Nature of―Jurisdiction

-Application under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code . The deposit under s. 174
of the Tenancy Act must be of such a nature as to be at once payable to the
parties, and a Court has no power to set aside a sale under that section unless
the judgment-debtor has complied strictly with its provisions. Where, there
fore, the Court accepted a deposit partly of cash and partly of a Government
121
Section 70. Promissory Note, and notwithstanding the objection of the auction-purchaser,
gave the judgment-debtor the benefit of s. 174 and set aside the sale, the High
Court set aside such order under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. - Rahim
Bux v. Nund Lal Oossami. I. L. R. , 14 Calc ., 321 .
73. Revision of interlocutory order when appeal lies from final decree -Power of
High Court. - There is nothing in s. 622 of the Code which prevents the High
Court from setting aside an interlocutory order if made without jurisdiction.
The word 66 case " in that section is wide enough to include such an order, and
the words " records of any case" include so much of the proceedings in any suit
as relate to an interlocutory order. Omrao Mirza v . Jones, 12 C. L. R., 148 ;
Harsaran Singh r. Muhamad Raza, I. L. R., 4 All., 91 ; Chattar Singh v. Lekhraj
Singh, I. L. R., 5 All. , 293 ; Farid Ahmad v . Dulari Bibi, I. L R., 5 All. , 233,
dissented from. Dhapi v . Ram Pershad. - I. L. R., 14 Calc. , 768 .
74. Error of law -Application to bring decree into comformity with judgment.
-A Small Cause Court rejected an application made under s. 206 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to bring a decree into comformity with the judgment, on the
ground that a former application had been dismissed for default and the petitioner
was bound to apply within one month from the date of dismissal and was now
too late. On an application to the High Court under s. 622 of the Code to set
aside this order : Held that the High Court could not interfere. Jivraji v.
Pragji. I. L. R., 10 Mad., 51.
75. Order made without jurisdiction under Act XIX of 1841 , ss. 3 and 4.
Where a District Court purporting to act under s . 4 of Act XIX of 1841 directed
an inventory of the estate of a deceased person to be taken without comforming to
the requirements of s . 3 of that Act, the High Court set aside the order under
8. 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure as made without jurisdiction. Abdul
Rahiman . Kutti Ahmed . I. L. R., 10 Mad., 68.
76. .Act XX of 1863, s. 18 -Order refusing permission to sue. -An order passed
under s. 18 of Act XX of 1863 , refusing leave to sue, is not appealable, nor, if
the Judge has exercised his discretion , liable to revision under s . 622 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. In re Venkateswara. -I. L. R., 10 Mad ., 98. See Anony
mous Case. I. L. R. , 10 Mad . , 98, note.
77. Revision -- Illegality in exercise of jurisdiction --Judge's duty to decide secun
dum allegata et probata. - The plaintiffs sued upon two bonds executed by the defen
dant in their father's favour, one for Rs. 260 and the other for Rs. 99-15 annas.
The defendant in his written statement, as well as in his deposition, admitted
execution of the bonds in question, but pleaded non-receipt of the consideration.
The Subordinate Judge held that the bond for Rs. 200 was not proved, but
awarded the claim upon the other bond. On appeal, one of the issues raised by
the Assistant Judge was-are the bonds in suit proved ? He held that the
plaintiffs had failed to prove execution of the bonds, and dismissed the claim in
toto. On an application to the High Court under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure
Code (Act XIV of 1882) : Held, reversing the decision of the lower Court, that
the defendant having admitted execution of the bonds in question , the Assistant
Judge acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in raising the question of
the execution. The first rule of adjudication is that a Judge shall decide secundum
allegata et probata. The only question that could be tried in the present case
was non-receipt of consideration . Gorakh Babaji v. Vithal Narayan Joshi. I.
L. R., 11 Bom. , 435.
78. High Court's power ofrevision- Res judicata-Jurisdiction, meaning of the
term . The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover arrears of an annual allowance
to which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled under a sanad dated 1846. The
defendant in his defence raised certain points, most of which he had raised in a
previous suit brought against him by the plaintiff for the recovery of arrears of
the same allowance, and which in that suit had been decided against him. The
lower Court held that the decision in the former suit operated as res judicata
122
and refused to allow the defendant to put forward any new matter which might Section 70.
and ought to have been urged as a defence in the former suit. A decree was
made in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant applied to the High Court under
s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code ( Act XIV of 1882) : Held, following Hari
Bhikaji, v. Naro Vishvanath, I. L. R. , 9 Bom. , 432, that the decision , even though
wrong, of a question of res judicata was not a failure, or a cause of failure, to
exercise jurisdiction and did not warrant the interference of the High Court
under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Amritrav Krishna Deshpande v.
Balkrishna Ganesh Amrapurkar. I. L. R., 11 Bom . , 488 .
79. Passing Decree unsupported by proof-High Court's powers of revision -Bail

ment- Negligence.-A Judge has no jurisdiction to pass, in a contested suit, a
decree adverse to the defendant where there is no evidence or admission before
him to support the decree, and where the burden of proof is not or has not
continued to be upon the defendant. If he passes such a decree, it is liable to
be set aside in revision under s . 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Maulvi
Muhammad v. Syad Hussain . I. L. R. , 3 All. , 203, and Harnam Tewari v. Sakina
Bibi, I. L. R., 3 All . , 417, referred to. S hired a horse from W. and while it was
in his custody it died from rupture of the diaphragm, which was proved to have
been caused by over- exertion on a full stomach. In a suit by W against S to
recover the value of the horse, the defendant gave evidence to the effect that
the horse became restive and plunged about, that he might then have touched
it with his riding cane, that it shortly afterwards again became excited, bolted
for two miles , and at last fell down and died. This evidence was not contra
dicted on any point, nor was any other evidence offered as to how the horse
came to run away. There was evidence that the horse was a quiet one, that
for some time previously it had done hardly any work, that it was fed immedi
ately before it was let out for hire, and that rupture of the diaphragm was a
likely result of the horse running away while its stomach was distended with
food. The Court of First Instante held that the defendant was bound to prove
that he had taken such care of the horse as a man of ordinary prudence would
under similar circumstances have taken of his own property, that he must have
used his whip freely, or done something else which caused the horse to bolt,
and that in so doing he had acted without reasonable care, and had thus caused
the animal's death. The Court accordingly decreed the claim : Held by Edge,
C. J. , that if the burden of proof was originally upon the defendant, it was
shifted by the explanation which he gave and which was neither contradicted
nor prima facie improbable ; and that the decree of the lower Court, being
unsupported by any proof, and based on speculation and assumption, was one
which that Court had no jurisdiction to pass, and should consequently be set
aside in revision under s . 622 of Civil Procedure Code. Per Brodhurst, J. , that
as the decree was not only unsupported by proof, but opposed to the evidence on
the record, the lower Court had " acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally," within the meaning of s . 622. Collins v. Bennett, 46 New York Rep .;
Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. and C. 722 ; Gee v. The Metropolitan Railway Company,
L. R. 8, Q. B. 161 ; Scott . The London Dock Company, 3 H. & C. 596 :
Manzoni v. Douglas, 6 Q. B. D. 145 ; Cotton v. Wood , 8 C. B. N. S. 569 ; Davey
v. The London and South Western Railway Company, 12 Q. B. D. 70 ; and
Hammack . White, 11 C. B. N. S. 588, referred to. Shields v. Wilkinson.
I. L. R. , 9 All . , 398.
80. Dismissal of suit without considering merits on technical ground.- Suit by

sole partner for partnership debt.-A Court of Small Causes, without considering
the merits, dismissed a suit brought by a sole surviving partner to recover a
partnership debt, on the ground that the plaintiff was not competent to maintain
the suit without joining the representatives of the deceased partner as co
plaintiffs : Held that it was the Judge's duty to hear and determine the suit,
which was brought by the person legally entitled to bring it alone in his Court
and in declining to entertain it on the merits, he had failed to exercise his
123
PUNJAB COURTS , [ACT XVIII
Section 70. jurisdiction, and had acted with material irregularity, within the meaning of s
622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Muhammad Suleman Khan v. Fatima.
I. L. R. 9, All., 104 ; and Dhan Singh v. Basant Singh, I. L. R., 8 All . , 579,
referred to . A suit should not be dismissed on merely technical grounds when
the merits are proved, and no injustice by surprise or otherwise will be done.
Gobind Prasad v. Chandar Sekhar. I. L. R., 9 All . , 486.
81. Bengal Tenancy Act ( VIII of 1885), s. 188 -Suit for rent- Co-sharers,
Suit by-Joint undivided estate - Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of
1882. ) s. 622.— A District Judge, in deciding a rent suit, held that s. 188 of the
Bengal Tenancy Act prohibited the Court from entertaining the suit in the form
in which it had been framed, and therefore dismissed the suit. Held, on an
application under s . 622 of the Civil Procedure Code to have the judgment of
the District Judge set aside, that the District Judge had acted in the exercise
of his jurisdiction illegally, inasmuch as s. 188 had no application to the case,
and that his decision must be set aside. Prem Chand Nuskur v. Mokshoda Debi.
1. L. R. , 14 Calc. , 201 ; and Umesh Chunder Roy v. Nashir Mullick, I. L.R. , 14
Calc. , 203 (note) , followed ; Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh. I.L.R. , 11
Calc., 6 ; L. R. 11 I. A. 237, distinguished. Jugobundhu Pattuck v.. Jadu Ghose
Alkushi. I. L. R., 15 Calc., 47.
82. Civil Procedure Code 1882, s. 516 - Material irregularity- Omission to
give notice of Proceeding. -A District Munsif passed a decree in the terms of an
award without giving notice of the filing of the award under s. 516 of the
Code of Civil Procedure : Held, that the District Munsif acted with material
irregularity within the meaning of s . 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Rangasami v. Muttusami. I. L. R.. 11 Mad., 144.
83. Court acting without jurisdiction -Suit for rent entertained by Small
Cause Court under erroneous impression it was due under a contract.-A Small Cause
Court, which had jurisdiction under Act XI of 1865 to entertain suits for rent
only where the claim was founded on contract, erroneously assumed that a
sub-tenant, by entering on land with notice that his lessor was bound to pay
rent to the landlord , became liable by an implied contract to pay the rent to the
landlord, and passed a decree against the sub-tenant for the rent in arrears :
Held that under s. 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court had
power to set aside the decree. Amir Hassan Khan . Sheo Bakhsh Singh. I.L.R. ,
11 Calc,. 6, discussed and explained . Manisha Eradi v. Siyali Koya. I. L. R., 11
Mad, 220.
84 Error of law-Material irregularity - Personal decree against minors for
debt of deceased Hindu father.— In a suit to recover a debt incurred by the deceas
ed father of a Hindu family, the District Judge gave a personal decree against
the sons of the debtor, of whom two were minors : Held that under s . 622 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree against the minors should be reversed ,
but that the Court has no power to revise the decree against the other defendants.
Bhashyam v. Jayaram . I. L. R.. 11 Mad ., 303.
85. Civil Procedure Code, s. 373--Leave given by District Court on appeal to
withdraw suit- Material irregularity.-A District Munsif having dismissed a suit,
plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and, at the same time, applied to the
Court to allow him to withdraw his suit with permission to bring a fresh suit
on the same cause of action . The District Court granted the application
without assigning any reasons for its order : Held, under s . 622 of the Code
of Civil Procedure that the District Court had acted with material irregu
larity. Tirupati v. Mutta. I. L. R., 11 Mad. , 322 .
86. Immoveable property -Right offishery- Possession - Dispossession- Specific
Relief Act I of 1877 8. 9- Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) ss . 30 and 622
Objection under s. 30 where suit is under s. 9 of Specific Relief Act.-The plaintiffs
were fishermen belonging to the village of N. They claimed in the suit for
themselves and the other fishermen of their village the exclusive right of fishing
124
in the Nagotha Creek between high and low-water marks, within certain limits Section 70.
set forth in the plaint, and under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act I of 1877, they
sought to recover possession of that right from the defendants, who they
alleged, had dispossessed them within six months before this suit was filed . The
Subordinate Judge held that they had established their right, and made an
order directing that possession should be restored to them . The defendants
then applied to the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction, contending
that the order made by the first Court was beyond its jurisdiction, the right
of fishing not being immoveable property within the meaning of that section :
Held, that the first Court did not act without jurisdiction, the right claimed
coming within the denomination of immoveable property. It was contended by
the defendants that the plaintiffs, who claimed on behalf of other fishermen of
the village, should have proceeded under s. 30 of the Civil Procedure Code
(Act XIV of 1882) : Held that the objection was a good one ; but, inasmuch as
it was still open to the defendants to establish their right by a regular suit the
irregularity in the present suit was not such as to call for the exercise of the
powers of the High Court under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Bhundal
Panda v. Pandol Pospatil. I. L. R. , 12 Bom . , 221 .
87, Jurisdiction, presumption of-Maxim, omnia præsumuntur rite et solemni
ter esse acta- Civil Procedure Code, ss. 103 , 288, 647. - The consideration of an ob
jection under s. 278 of the Civil Procedure Code, having first been entertained
and adjourned by an Additional Subordinate Judge, subsequently came before
the Subordinate Judge, who struck off the case for default. No order under s. 25
transferring the case to the Subordinate Judge was on the record, nor was it
otherwise shown how he obtained jurisdiction to deal with it : Held that the
High Court in the exercise of its revisional powers under s . 622 of the Code,
should not presume that the Subordinate Judge had taken up the case without
jurisdiction ; that the proper remedy of the petitioner was an application under
s. 103, read with s . 647 , or a suit under s. 283, and that the High Court should
not interfere in revision . Sheo Prasad Singh v. Kastura Kuar. I. L. R. , 10
All., 119.
88. Limitation - High Court's revisional powers - Material irregularity. - On

the 29th November 1886 this suit was filed on a bond dated the 29th November
1881 , payable in two years. The Subordinate Judge dismissed it as time-barred,
being of opinion that the cause of action had accrued on 28th November 1883 .
Against this decision the plaintiff applied to the High Court under s. 622 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882) : Held reversing the decision of the
Subordinate Judge, that the suit was not barred by time, the cause of action
having accrued on the 29th November 1883--that is, the day of the month
corresponding with the day on which the bond was dated. Held, further, that
the decision of the Subordinate Judge being palpably wrong and illegal, the
High Court had jurisdiction to exercise its revisional power under s . 622 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882) . Where a Court, with a full and
correct apprehension of the questions which it is necessary for it to decide in
any case, errs in law or in fact in its decision of any such questions with which
it has jurisdiction to deal, its errors can only be corrected in due course of
appeal ; and where no appeal is permissible there is no remedy under s . 622 of
the Code or under the provisions of s. 15 of Statute 24 & 25 Vic., c. 104, whta
ever remedy there may be, in the Bombay Presidency, under cl. 2 of s. 5 of
Reg. II of 1827. But it is otherwise in any case where the Court, having a
mistaken and wrong apprehension of the questions at issue, proceeds to deter
mine an issue, which does not really arise in the case, and bases its decision of
the case on its determination of that issue. If it does so, it acts with material
irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction . Venkubai v. Lakshman Venkoba
Khot. I. L. R. , 12 Bom. , 617.
89.
Orders in pauper suit - Civil Procedure Code, s. 407.-All orders passed
under s. 407 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not excluded from the exercise of
125
Section 70. the revisional powers of the High Court under s. 622 of the Code, Chatterpal Singh
v . Raja Ram, I. L. R., 7 All ., 661 , notwithstanding . In the exercise of revisional
powers it is not the duty of the High Court to enter into the merits of the
evidence; it has only to see whether the requirements of the law have been
duly and properly obeyed by the Court whose order is the subject of revision,
and whether the irregularity as to failure of exercise of jurisdiction is such as
to justify interference with the order. Muhammad Husain v. Ajudhia Prasad.
I. L. R., 10 All., 467.
90. Civil Procedure Code, ss. 494, 588 -Appeal against order for issue of notice
under s. 494- Revision by High Court of an order purporting to be made on appeal
from such an order-A petition praying for a temporary injunction in a suit
was presented by the plaintiff in a Subordinate Court. The Judge refused to
pass orders on it without hearing the defendants, and ordered notice to issue to
them . The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge who granted the injunction
prayed for : Held, that no appeal lay from the Subordinate Court, and that the
District Judge had purported to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in him by law.
Luis v. Luis. I. L. R., 12 Mad. , 186 .
91. Arbitration - Award-Application to file award, objection to- Decree on
award, finality of-Private arbitration - Revisional powers of High Court-Juris
diction - Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882 ) , ss . 520, 521 , 525, 526 and 622.—
Certain disputes between parties were referred under a written agreement to an
arbitrator, who in due course made his award . The plaintiff then applied to
the Subordinate Judge to have the award filed in Court under the provisions of s.
525 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants came in and objected to the
award on the following amongst other grounds : ( 1 ) That the value of the pro
perty in suit was Rs . 500 only, and therefore that the application should have
been made in the Munsiff's Court and not in that of the Subordinate Judge. (2)
That the agreement of submission was vague and indefinite and did not clearly
set out the matters in dispute. The Subordinate Judge overruled the objection
without taking any evidence, and directed the award to be filed and a decree to
be passed thereon . The plaintiff appealed . The defendants contended that no
appeal lay, and that if it did it lay to the District Judge and not to the High
Court : Held, that, assuming that on a proceeding under ss. 525 and 526, the
Court has power to consider such objections as are mentioned in ss . 520 and 521 ,
the above objections did not fall under either section, but that the Subordinate
Judge, before entertaining the application, was bound to satisfy himself that he
had jurisdiction to entertain it, and for that purpose to take evidence regarding
the value of the property ; and that even if no appeal lay, the High Court could
interfere under its revisional powers, because the Subordinate Judge had acted
in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally in assuming jurisdiction without
taking such evidence. Bindessuri Pershad Singh v . Jankee Pershad Singh .
I. L. R., 16 Calc. , 482.
92. Bengal Tenancy Act ( VIII of 1885 ) ss . 104. cl. 2, 105, 106, 108- Rule 33
of the rules made under the Act-Jurisdiction- Record of right- Civil Procedure
Code, (Act XIV of 1882 ) , ss. 108, 622- Order of Special Judge as to settlement of
rents. The High Court has no jurisdiction either to entertain a second appeal
from, or to interfere under s . 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure with, an order
of a Special Judge in regard to settlement of rents. Shewbarat Koer v. Nirpat
Roy. I. L. R. , 16 Calc. , 596 .
93 . Cour on petit by
Act XIX of 1841 , ss . 2 , 3 , 5 , 15 — Order of Distri t io
c
Cour of Ward .-On a petit pres by the Agen of tthe Cour of Wardn a
t e t t
Dist
i
Cour s mad an orde onwhic nptuerdp to have been made unde Act Xs IX
ri t e r h orte r
of 184c1t, s . 5. The condi pres
crib
by sds . 3 and 4 were not show to exist :
tion n
Held , the orde of the Distr s Cour weads illeg , and was subje to revis
r ic t al ct ion
unde s . 622 of the Code of Citvil Proc . Pap
amm
v . Coll
ecto
of Goda
vari
.
r edur a r
I. L. R. , 12 Mad . , 341 . e
126
94. Material irregularity- Small Cause Court, Motion for new trial of case in. Section 70,
-The defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiffs a quantity of rapeseed, April
May delivery, On the 23rd of April the defendant endorsed over to the plain
tiffs a delivery order for the seed given him by L. M. & Co. , which plaintiffs
presented to L. M. & Co. On the 26th April and on three or four subsequent
occasions L. M. & Co. refused to deliver, on the ground that they had till the
31st May for delivery . On the 15th May, L. M. & Co. failed, and then, but not
before, plaintiffs informed the defendant that they had not had delivery from
L. M. & Co., and demanded it of him . The defendant failing to deliver, the
plaintiffs sued for damages as of the 31st May. The learned Judge of the Small
Cause Court, on this statement of facts, and before evidence was gone into, ruled
that the damages were assessable as of the 25th April, on which day it was
admitted the market rate was as high or higher than the contract rate. The
plaintiffs on this ruling, without going into their case further, accepted judg
ment for nominal damages, and took out a rule for a new trial, on the ground
that the Judge was in error in assigning the 25th April, and not the 31st May,
as the date which ruled the question of damages. On the argument of the rule
the Full Court decided against the plaintiffs, not on this point, which they did
not decide one way or the other, but on another point altogether, viz ., that the
plaintiffs ought to have given defendant notice of L. M. & Co.'s refusal to give
delivery on the 25th April, and not having done so, could not call on the defen
dant to deliver. The plaintiffs now moved the High Court under s . 622 of
the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), to set aside the order of the
Full Court of the Small Cause Court as one which at that stage of the pro
ceedings that Court had no right to make. Held, that in making the order in
question under the circumstances of the case, and the state of the record, the
Full Court had acted with material irregularity within the meaning of s. 622
of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the case must be remanded to be dealt
with according to law. Ralli v. Parmanand Jewraj. I. L. R., 13 Bom,, 642.
95.-Civil Procedure Code, s. 629. - Order on appeal affirming order granting.
application for review of judgment. -The High Court will not, in the exercise
of its revisional powers under s. 622 of the Code, interfere with an order
dismissing an appeal from an order under s. 629, inasmuch as there is remedy
by way of appeal from the final decree at the re-hearing. Gopal Das v. Alaf
Khan. I. L. R., 11 All. , 383.
95. Order made by High Court, Application to review.- Section 622 of the
Civil Procedure Code (XIV of 1882) does not apply to a case where the order, of
which review is sought, is made by the High Court. The High Court referred
to in s . 622 is a Court other than the High Court. In rs Premji Trikumdas.
I. L. R., 17 Bom. , 514.
96. Landlord and tenant- Suit for rent.-In a suit in a Small Cause Court
for rent due in respect of two pieces of land, the Court passed a decree in favour
of the plaintiff. The defendant preferred a petition to the High Court under the
Civil Procedure Code, s . 622 , which came on for hearing before one Judge. He
held that the Small Cause Court had failed to give effect to a former decree
between the parties in respect of one piece of land, and made an order reversing
the decree as to that, and calling for a report of what was due on the other piece
of land. The plaintiff preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent, cl . 15 :
Held, that even if the Subordinate Judge had failed to give effect to the previous
decree, the error was not such as to give the Court jurisdiction to revise his
proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code, s . 622. Vanangamudi v. Ramasami.
I. L. R., 14 Mad., 406.
97. Failure to exercise jurisdiction- Refusal ofapplication for rateable distribu

tion of sale-proceeds.-A debtor against whom several decrees had been passed filed
his petition in the Insolvency Court at Madras and the usual vesting order was
made . One of the decree-holders had already attached property of the insolvent
127
PUNJAB COURTS . [ACT XVIII .
Section 70. and had obtained an order for sale in a District Court, and another decree- hold
er now applied to the same Court in execution of his decree, for attachment
of other property, and for rateable distribution the proceeds of sale to be held
in execution of the attachment already made. The District Judge held that the
vesting order was a bar to both these applications .- Held, that the order reject
ing the application for rateable distribution was wrong, and that the High
Court had power to set it aside on revision under s . 622 of the Civil Procedure
Code, the Judge having failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law.
Viraraghava v. Parasurama. I. L. R. , 15 Mad . , 372 .
98. Failure to exercise jurisdiction. -Where a Subordinate Judge wrongly held
that a suit was one of the nature contemplated by s. 539 of the Civll Procedure
Code, and returned the plaint for presentation to the District Judge :-Held, that
the High Court had power under s . 622 of the Code to interfere, the Subordi
nate Judge having failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law.
Vishvanath Govind Deshmane v. Rambhat. I. L. R., 15 Bom. , 148.
99. Judge putting erroneous construction on section of Act -Civil Procedure Code,
1882, s. 329. - Where a Judge took an erroneous view of s. 329 of the Civil Pro
cedure Code, and proceeded on such erroneous construction to make orders which
on a proper construction of the section he would have no jurisdiction to make : —
Held, that it was a proper case for the exercise of the powers given to the High
Court under s. 622 of the Code. Salamva e. Maryyava. I. L. R., 16 Bom.,
711 , note.
See also Vishvambhar Pandit v. Vasudev Pandit. I. L. R., 16 Bom. , 708.
100. Suit for arrears of rent - Decision of Collector on appeal from Assistant
Collector- N.-W. P. Rent Act (XII of 1881 ) ss. 183,199. ] The High Court has no
power to revise, under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, an order passed by a
Collector under s . 183 of the N. W. P. Rent Act ( XII of 1881 ) on appeal from
an Assistant Collector of the Second Class . Her Pershad v. Lalu, 3 N. W. 60
distinguished. Ram Dial v . Ramadhin. I. L. R., 12 All . , 198.
101 Revision, powers of High Court in-Jurisdiction, want of, by lower Court.
-Unless the facts from which want of jurisdiction on the part of a subordinate
Court may be inferred are patent upon the face of the record, the High Court
will not interfere in revision, Mihr Ali Shah v. Muhammad Husen. I. L. R.,
14 All . , 413 .
102. Transfer ofproperty Act ( IV of 1882), s . 87, order under- Right of appeal,
-An order, under s . 87 of Act IV of 1882 extending the time for payment of the
mortgage money by a mortgagor is a " decree " within the meaning of ss. 2 and
244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, and since an appeal lies from it, no
application will lie under s . 622 of the Code for revision of such order. Rahima
v. Nepal Rai. I, L. R., 14 All ., 520 .
See Kadarnath v. Lalji Sahai. I L. R., 12 All . , 61 .
103. Order made without jurisdiction- Order cancelling sale in execution of

decree under s. 308, Code of Civil Procedure-Appeal.-A person who had attached
a decree and obtained leave to bid at the sale of land ordered to be sold in execu
tion, and to have the purchase-money and the amount due under the decree set
off against each other, became the purchaser for a sum less than the amount due
under the decree. The Court made an order under the Civil Procedure Code,
s. 308, cancelling the sale and ordering a re- rale on the ground that the purchaser
had not paid the full amount due on his purchase within the time limited . The
purchaser preferred a revision petitiou under the Civil Procedure Code, s. 622 :
Held, that the petitioner was the representative of the decree-holder within the
meaning of the Civil Procedure Code, s . 244, and might have perferred an
appeal against the order sought to be revised ; and that therefore the petition
128
1884. ] PUNJAB COUrts .
for revision was not maintainable, although, under the circumstances above Section 70.
stated, the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order under the Civil Proce
dure Code, s. 308. Sah Man Mull v. Kanaga-sabapathi. -I. L. R. 16, Mad. , 20.
104. Civil Procedure Code, s. 206 -Amendment of decree-Munsifacting ille
gally but in exercise of jurisdiction. The holder of a decree passed in a suit on a
hypothecation-bond, applied under the Civil Procedure Code, s . 206, to have
the decree amended by bringing the description of the land contained therein
into accordance with that contained in the hypothecation-bond, and the Court
made an order accordingly. On a revision petition preferred under the Civil
Procedure Code, s. 622, by the judgment-debtor :-Held (reversing the judgment
of Parker, J., but on different reasoning by the two learned Judges constituting
the Court), that the High Court had no power to interfere on revision.
Narayanasami v. Natesa . I. L. R., 16 Mad., 424.
105. Madras Rent Recovery Act (Madras Act VIII of 1865), ss. 10 and 76.—
The defendant in a suit under the Madras Rent Recovery Act was evicted in
pursuance of an order made under s. 10. That order having been reversed on
appeal, he applied to be replaced in possession, but the Sub-Collector dismissed
that application :-Held, that the High Court could not interfere in revision
under the Civil Procedure Code, s. 622. Appandai v. Srihari Joishi. I. L. R.,
16 Mad., 451 .
106. Erroneous decision with jurisdiction -- Succession Certificate Act (VII of
1889), s. 4. -A person applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover assets
forming part of the estate of a deceased person. His application was dismissed
on the ground that he produced no certificate under Act VII of 1889 : -Held,
that the application was wrongly dismissed ; and that the High Court had
jurisdiction to interfere on revision under the Civil Procedure Code, s. 622.
Kammathi v. Mangappa . I. L. R. , 16 Mad. , 454.
107. Order allowing withdrawal of suit- Civil Procedure Code, s. 373-Revi

sion.-A Subordinate Judge, in granting the application of a plaintiff before him for
permission to withdraw with leave to file a fresh suit in the same matter, made
an order as to costs in favour of the defendants in the following terms :-" As
the case has not been contested to the itte end, half the pleader's fees are
allowed and the process expenses, &c ., incurred in the case, except those already
refused to the defendants . For travelling and incidental expenses defendants to
put in a bill in one week, this to be subject to the decision of the Court after
hearing both parties. The application under s. 373 of the Code of Civil Proce
dure is granted with leave to the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit for the same
matter. Costs allowed to defendant as above " :-Held, that the order under
s. 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an order liable to revision as it was
not open to appeal. Kalian Singh v. Lekhraj Singh, I. L. R. , 6 All. , 211 , referred
to. Dick v. Dick. I. L. R. , 15 All. , 169.
108. Order refusing to discharge surety for insolvent judgment -debtor- Civil
Procedure Code, ss. 336, 344-- Appeal. — One B M became surety under s . 336 of
the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of one G R, a judgment-debtor, to the effect
that G. R would appear before the Court when called on, and would within one
month file an application to be declared an insolvent. GR did so apply, but on
the surety's asking the Court to declare him discharged of his liability the
Court refused to do so :-Held, that the surety's liability was discharged by the
judgment-debtor applying to be made an insolvent, and that the order refusing
to discharge him was not appealable and was therefore open to revision under
s. 622 of the Code. Banna Mal v. Jamna Das. I. L. R., 15 All., 183.
109. Civil Procedure Code, s. 283 - High Court's power of revision - Remedy by
suit.- The High Court will not exercise its revisional jurisdiction so long as
there is any other remedy open to the applicant. Where a Subordinate Judge
disallowed an application for the release of certain property which had been
129
Section 70. attached before judgment :-Held that there being a remedy by suit under s. 283
of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court should not interfere with such
order in revision . Ittiachan v. Vellappan. I. L. R., 8 Mad., 484 ; Sheo Prashad
Singh v. Kastura Kuar. I. L. R. , 10 All . 119, and Gopal Das v. Alaf Khan,
I. L. R., 11 All. , 383, referred to. Guise v. Jaisraj . I. L. R. , 15 All. , 405 .
110. Exercise ofpower of High Court under s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code
1882, where there is no appeal-Order refusing to makeperson party to oppose probate
-Where a Hindu died leaving a widow, and also a daughter (who alleged collusion
between the widow and one of the executors applying for probate of an alleged
will) the daughter was held to have sufficient interest to entitle her to be made a
party to the application and to oppose the grant of probate ; and the Judge
having refused to make her a party, the Court, finding that no appeal lay from
that order, thought it a proper case for the exercise of its power under s. 622 of
the Civil Procedure Code , and remanded the case for trial as a contested applica
tion. Khettramoni Dasi v. Shyama Churn Kundu. I. L. R. , 21 Calc. , 539.
.111 . Under the provisions of section 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure
no second appeal lies to the High Court from an order passed in appeal by a
District Judge on an application by a judgment-debtor to have a sale in exe
cution of a decree set aside on the ground of material irregularity.
A judgment-debtor applied to have a sale in execution of a decree set aside
on the ground that the sale proclamation had not been duly published , and
that it referred to only 5 bighas instead of some 700, the actual amount, and
that in consequence thereof a grossly inadequate price had been obtained for the
property. The Munsif found these allegations to be proved and set aside the sale.
On appeal the District Judge, while agreeing with the Munsif as to these find
ings, held that there was no proof that the inadequacy of price was due to ir
regulatrities alleged and proved, and that such could not be presumed . He ac
cordingly reversed the Munsif's order. The judgment-debtor having appealed
to the High Court against the order of the District Judge and failed in such
appeal by reason of no second appeal lying from such order, applied to the
High Court under the provisions of section 622 of the Code to have the order
set aside .
Held, that the District Judge having full jurisdiction to determine whether
the sale was good or bad, it was impossible to say that, in arriving at the
decision he did, he either acted without jurisdiction or illegally in the exercise
of his jurisdiction , and that the High Court could not therefore interfere with
the order under that section. I. L. R., 21 Cal. , 799 .
112. A number of tenants were joined as defendants in a proceeding for
settlement of rents under section 104, clause 2 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and
an appeal preferred by the landlords under section 108, clause 2 from the
Revenue Officer's decision, making all or nearly all the tenants respondents.
The appeal was dismissed by the Special Judge on the ground that as many
Court-fees of Rs . 10 each, as there were tenants-defendants, had not been paid,
and the appellants petitioned the High Court to set aside the order under s . 622.
Held by a Full Bench that the Special Judge refused to exercise a jurisdiction
vested in him. I. L. R., 23 Calc. , 723.
113. An application under s. 622 cannot be entertained in the case of
those interlocutory orders against which, though no immediate appeal lies, a
remedy is supplied by s. 591. The purpose with which s. 662 was framed was
to enable a party to a suit to get a decision or order of Lower Court rectified by
the High Court where there would otherwise be no remedy. I. L. R., 18
Bom., 35.
114. If a Judge and assessors sitting to determine the amount of compen
sation to be awarded for land acquired, refuse to take into consideration any of
the matters prescribed by s. 24, or improperly take into consideration any of
130
1884.] PUNJAB COURTS.
the matters prohibited by s. 25, such procedure amounts to material irregularity. Section 70.
I. L. R., 17 Mad. , 371.
15. The fact that a Court has misunderstood the effect of a document in
evidence does not constitute a material irregularity. I. L. R. , 16 All. , 39.
116. A Civil appeal was being heard before a Subordinate Judge, the
appellant and two pleaders on his behalf being present. During the argument
one pleader was called away to another Court and remained absent, and as
neither the other pleader nor the appellant was in a position to continue the
argument, the Subordinate Judge passed an order, under s . 556 Civil Procedure
Code dismissing the appeal for default. An application to reinstate the appeal
was rejected . The appellant appealed under s. 588. Held that no such appeal
lay, as the order in question could not have been made under s. 556 but the
appellant was allowed to apply in revision, and it was held that the Court below
had acted with material irregularity. I. L. R. , 18 A. , 119.
Additional Notes.
This section 70 in part takes away the wider revisional jurisdiction given by
s. 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended in 1879 and re-enacted in 1882.
Restriction was placed in consequence of the very different views of the scope
of s . 622 as amended taken by the High Court of Bombay and Allahabad.
The Chief Court had suggested that s. 622 should be cut down to its original
dimensions by omitting the words added in 1879. The Select Committee were,
however, of opinion that as the principal source of difficulty in interpreting s. 622
was found in the power given to revise on the ground that the lower Court
had acted illegally, this power should be withdrawn. The result will be that
when a Court, whose decree is final, has decided contrary to some positive rule of
law, but cannot be said to have erred as to a question of jurisdiction, or to have
acted with material irregularity, there will be no power
64 to interfere. Mr. (now
Sir) C. P. Ilbert said as follows on this subject. Having settled the limita
tions on the right of appeal, we were told that these limitations would be
illusory, because in cases where an appeal was barred, a way would be found
to the Chief Court under s. 622. Now, it certainly was not the intention of the
framers of that section that it should simply give a right of appeal in another
form ; but there is some reason for believing that the words which were inserted
in the section in 1879 have obscured the line which was originally drawn
between the class of cases in which an appeal was to be and the class of cases
in which the power of revision was to be exerciseable. Thus the Allahabad
High Court has construed the new words in such a way as would render nuga
tory any limitation on the right of appeal. The most careful consideration to
which they have been subjected has been in the Bombay High Court -See I. L. R.
7 B., 342, where Mr. Justice West has drawn a useful and instructive comparison
between the revisional jurisdiction of the Indian High Courts and the analo
gous superintending jurisdiction exercisable by the Court of Queen's Bench
under the prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition . While in
sisting, very properly, on the necessity for such a jurisdiction , he remarks on the
tendency which has manifested itself in recent times to confine its exercise
within somewhat narrower limits than heretofore,
" In India as in England " he says " the grant of a rule under the extraordinary jurisdic
tion is discretional, and the power should be used only to sustain, and not further to disturb,
the regular course of judicial determination, to prevent distortions or sham applications of
the law, but not to promote uncertainty and restlessness, by an overnice scrutiny of proceed.
ings that aim at promptness rather than refinement."
He wisely abstains from an attempt to define precisely cases in which the

"
power ought to be exercised, for what is abnormal cannot be provided for pre
131
PUNJAB COURTS. [ACT XVIII.
Sections 71-73. cisely by rules, but he makes it clear that in his opinion the jurisdiction under
s. 622 is an extraordinary jurisdiction, to be exercised only in extraordinary
cases, and he lays down certain general principles as a guide to the discretion
of the Court in exercising it. It is evident, however, that the word illegally
has been a stumbling block to him, and that he has, felt some difficulty in
reconciling its presence with what he rightly conceives to be the general scope of
the jurisdictiou exercisable under the section. For, as he says, in one sense
every erroneous decision or order is illegal" in other words every slip on a
question of law or fact would justify the interference of the High Court. This
is a most instructive and exhaustive exposition of the section and will be refer
red to whenever the meaning of the section comes up for consideration in
the Chief Court. The limitations which have been placed on the right of
appeal make it eminently desirable that we should, if possible, prevent the re
vision section from being interpreted in such a way as to make these limitations
nugatory. We have very carefully considered whether and how this can
be effected ; and the conclusion to which we have come is that we ought to strike
out the word illegally on which the advocates of the wider interpretation main
ly rely. It is impossible to predict how a section which is of necessity express
ed in wide and general terms will , in practice, be interpreted, but we believe that
the omission of this word will materially facilitate the adoption of those views
which are to be found in the judgment of Mr. Justice West."
71. In the first schedule annexed to the Court Fees Act
1870 , after No. 12 , the following shall be inserted :
Number. Proper Fee.
13. Application to the When the amount or va Two rupees.

Chief Court or the Court lue of the subject-matter
of the Financial Commis in dispute does not exceed
sioner of the Punjab for twenty -five rupees .
the exercise of its revision
al jurisdiction under sec When such amount or The fee leviable on a
tion 622 of the Code of Ci value exceeds twenty-five memorandum of appeal .
vil Procedure. rupees .
72. Ifthe Court, on an application under section 622 of

the Civil Procedure Code, on which a fee has been paid under
the last preceding section, sets aside or modifies the decree or
order of a subordinate Court, or remands the case for a fresh
decision, it may grant to the appellant a certificate, authoriz
ing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount
of fee paid on the application, or any smaller amount which
with regard to the circumstances of the case, it may think
proper to order to be refunded .
73. All appointments made under sections 5 and 22 of

Act XVII of 1877, directions given under section 23, rules
and forms made and prescribed under sections 19, 26 and 27,
and notifications published, powers conferred, and orders
issued under section 49, ofthe same Act, shall, so far as may
be, be deemed to have been respectively made, given, pre
scribed, published, conferred and issued under this Act.
132
74. Repealed by Act I of 1894. Section 74-76.
75. [Amendment of Act XXVIII of 1868, section 42 ] . Repealed by Act

XVI of 1887.
( 1) When the businsss pending before any Divisional

Court consisting of one Judge, or before the Court of any
District Judge, requires the aid of an Additional Judge, for
its speedy disposal, the Local Government may appoint to
the Court an Additional Divisional Judge or an Additional
District Judge, as the case may be.
(2) An Additional Judge so appointed shall discharge any

of the functions of a Divisional Judge or District Judge, as
the case may be, which the Divisional Judge or District Judge
may assign to him, and shall, as regards the discharge of
those functions and subject to the provisions of the next
following sub- section , be deemed, for the purposes of this
Act, to be a Divisional Judge or District Judge.
(3) Where an Additional Divisional Judge is appointed

to a Divisional Court under sub- section (1), the Court shall
not be deemed for the purposes of this act to be a Divisional
Court consisting of more than one Judge .
76. Subject to the provisions of any enactment for the

time being in force, the Chief Court may, of its own motion
or on the application of a party, withdraw any proceeding
which is pending in any Court subordinate to it, and for the
withdrawal of which provision is not made in sections 25 and
647 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or in section 526 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 , and may either itself dis
pose of the proceeding or transfer it for disposal to any
other subordinate Court .
THE SCHEDULE.
ACTS REPEALED .
[ Repealed by Act XII of 1891. ]
Mufid-i-Am Press, Lahore.

133
INDEX .
A.
Accounts - Suit for, appeal in, determined by plaint ... 88.

Accounts- Suit for-jurisdiction. ... ... ... ... 8.
· Value of suit for ... ... ... ... 15, 21
Act XIX of 1841-power of revision ... ... 843 97

Administration suit ... .... ... ... ... 8.
Adoption Suit relating to-value ... ... ... 20
Alienation- do. do.. ... ... ... 21, 91
Appeal from original jurisdiction of Chief Court .... ... 29
Appeals from Munsif ... .. ... ... ... 87
to Divisional Court ... ... .... ... 87
to Chief Court ... ... ... 87
::
Further ... ... ... 8. 89

Appeal-Court of, determined by plaint, not decree ... ... 88,91
Appeal in suit where decree involves directly property of the value
of Rs. 1,000 ... ... ... ... 89
Appeal, not competent to parties not in Divisional Court ... ... 90 ·
Arrest wrongful- Suit relating to ... ... ... 10, 11
Attachment-suits arising out of—not cognisable by S. C. C. ... 7,11
::
Award-Suit relating to-value ... ... ... ... 19, 22
B.
⠀⠀⠀
Bench of Judges 1.4 ... 116 ... 84

:::
Betrothal --Suit relating to ... ... ... ... 10

Burden of proof-not a question of law for appeal ... ... 93
C.
Cancellation Suit for-not cognisable by S. C. C. ... ... 6

Capacity of Judicial offer- to be set forth in proceeding ... ... 64
Case-Meaning of, as used in s. 622 C. P. C. ... ... ... 97
Certificate for appeal ... ... ... ... ... 90
Defective- examples ... ... 0.0 93
Chief Court- Judges-precedence ... ... ... 24
Chief Judge ... ... ... ... ... 24
Chief Court-Judgments-original, appellate ... ... 67-68
Chief Court-Original Civil Jurisdiction-Rules ... 66
::
:::
Classes of Courts ... ... ... ... ... 70

Compensation- Suit for- not cognisable by S. C. C ... ... 6
Conjugal rights- Suit relating to 194 ... ... 04 12
ii INDEX .
Construction of document, a question of law ... ... 93

Contract-Specific performance ofsuit for, not cognisable by S. C. C. , 6
Contribution- Suit for ... ... ... ... 12
Control by Divisional Courts and District Courts ... 85

Copies - Rules relating to ... ... ... 48
Courts-Classes of ... ... ... ... ... 70
::
Courts of Wards- Suit against-not Small Cause ... 2
Custody of minor- Suit for ... ... ... 12
D.
Declaratory decree- Value of suit ... ... ... 19
:.
Decree involving directly claim to property of one thousand rupees ... 90-91
Deputy Registrar- Powers of ... ... ... ... 30
Difference of opinion among Judges of Chief Court ... ... 29
::
Dissolution of patnership- Suit for ... ... 8
Distribution of Civil business ... .*** ... ... 85
District Judge, Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. ... .. 72
::
District Court or principal Court of C. J. ... ... 72
Divisional Courts, where located ... 71
::
:.
Divisional Courts - Record Office Fund- Rules ... ... 62
Divisional Court- Jurisdiction in Civil Cases ... ... 72
Divisional Court-District Court in Divorce Cases ...
⠀⠀
... 73
.‫د‬ 22 "" Legal Practitioners ' Act 73
"" "2 19 Land Acquisition Act ... 73
29 19 "" Small Cause Court Act ... 73
:
29 " 29 Succession Certificate Act ... 73

⠀⠀⠀
22 22 29 C. P. Code ... 73;

Door - Suit relating to ... ... ... 12
***
Door- Right to open or close- suit -value ... ... *** 22

Dower-Suit relating to ... ... ... 12
⠀⠀
Drain- Right to-suit- value ... ... : ... 22

E.
Easement Suit relating to ... ... 11
:
:
..
F.
Files -Inspection of- Rules ... ... 59
:.
Fine-on Ministerial Officers ... ... 14 86

...
Finality of decrees of District and Divisional Courts ... ... 94-95
Foreign Judgment - Suit on ... ... ... ... 7
Full Bench - Rules .... ... ... 418 ... 28
Further Appeals ... ... 89
...
:
none in Small Causes ... ... 90

:
none in certain unclassed suits ... ... ... 90

none where appellant not party in Divisional Court ... 20
admitted ex-parte, open to objection by respondent 418 94
INDEX. iii
G.
272
Government- Suit against- not cognisable by S. C. C. ... 1.6
Guardian- Suit to set aside alienation by-not cognisable by S. C. C....
Guardianship - Suit- value ... ... ... 440 20
H.
43 4
Hakk-Suit for ... ... ... ... ... 5
Hereditary Office - Suit for ... ... ... 5
History of Punjab Courts -Introduction
Holidays ... ... ... 96
:
I.
Illegal-expunged from s. 622, Civil Procedure Code ... ... 96
Immoveable property- Suit for possession ... ... ... 3
Injunction Value of suit ... ... ... ... 19, 92
Inspection of Files -- Rules ... ... ... ... 59
Interest in immoveable property- Suit for ... .. 14
J.
Judges of Chief Court ... ... ... ... ... 24
Judgments of Chief Court- Original Civil jurisdiction ... ... 67
Ditto Appellate 22 ... 68
Jurisdiction of Munsif ... ... ... ... 83
Subordinate Judge ... ... ... 83 20806
Divisional Judge and District Judge ... ... 72
Refusal of or assumption of- see cases under s. 70 ... 96
L.
⠀⠀⠀
Land suits-What are ... ... ... ... ... 13

Legacy-Suit for ... ... ... ... ... 8
::
Libel-Suit for ... ... ... ... 10

Limitation for applications for certificates ... ... ... 90
383353
::
Ditto appeals ... ... 95

...
Ditto for applications for revision, not extendible ... 93
M.
Maintenance- Suit for ... ... ...a ... 12
Malicious Prosecution- Suit relating to ... ... ... 10
Malikana- Suit for ... ... ... ... 5
...
Marriage-Suits relating to ... ... ... ... 20
Minor-Custody of- Suit for ... ... ... ... 12
::
Mortgage Suits Value ... ... .. ... 14

Munsifs-Rules relating to ... ... ... ... 73
O.
888
Original Civil Jurisdiction of Chief Court- Rules ... ... 66

Over -valuation AL ALD ... 114 ... 89
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
ir INDEX.
P.
Paper -books - Rules .... ... 1.08 33
:
Partition Suit- value ... ... ... ... ... 15
22 not cognisable by S. C. C. ... ... ... 3
Partnership- Suits relating to ... ... ... &
::
Petition-writers- Rules ... ... .... ... 39
Powers of Deputy Registrar ...... .... ... ... 30,
Powers- Conferment of ... ... ... ... 84
Powers of District Court -conferable on Sub-Judge ... ... 87-94
Profits Suit for ... ... ... ... ... 12
Punjab Civil Code ...... ..... .... ... ... iii
Q.
Question of law or custom .... ... ... ... 90-93

Burden of proof, is not ... ... ... 93.
what is necessity, is ... ... ... ... 93
construction of document, is ... 934 93:
Records- Copies of Rules ... ... ... ... 48:

Record- Office Fund-Rules ... ... ... ... 62
Rectification Suit for- not cognisable by Small Cause Court ... 6:
Refund of Assets-Suit for- not cognisable by Small Cause Court ... 7
Rent-Suit for when cognisable by Small Cause Court ... ... 3

Registration Act, s . 77, value of suit ... ... ... : 93
Revenue- Suit for ... ... ... .. ... 12
Revision- Modification of s. 622 ... .... .... ... 96
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
cases in which revisional powers exercised by Chief Court ... 96-106

19 by High Courts ... ...106-128
Right to or interest in minor property- Suit for ... ... 4
⠀⠀⠀
Rules as to exercise by one or more Judges of Chief Court jurisdiction 25
Rules- Paper-Books ... ... ... 33

Translations ... ... ... 32
Petition-writers 39
Copies ... ... ... .... 48

Relating to Munsifs ... ... ... 73
under the Suits Valuation Act ... 400 ... 15ff
S.
⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀
Schedule to Small Cause Court Act 600 ... ... 1-13

Security in revision cases ... ... ...4 31
Single Judges - what cases can dispose of ... ... ... 26.
Slander- Suit for ... ... ... ... ... 10
Small Cause Court, power of, conferment of on other Judges .... 84

INDEX . A
Small Causes- what not ... ... www 1-13

Small Cause Court-Record Office Fund ... ... ... 62
Specific performance- Suit for -not cognisable by Small Cause
Court ... ... ... 3.4 ... ... 6
Special Judges ... ... ... ... 144 84
Standing Crops - Suit for-not cognisable by Small Cause Court ... 3
Subordinate Judges -Appointment ... ... ... 73
Suits Valuation Act ... ... ... ... 15
Suit for removal of Mahant- value ... ... ... 88
Suit for pre-emption of reversionary right-value ... ... 89
Superintendence by Chief Court ... ... ... 32
"9 99 in revision
-cases ... ... 96 f
Suspension of Judges ... ... ... ... 85
Ministerial Officers ... 190 ... 86
T.
Tahsildar-Munsif 3rd class -ex - officio ... ... ... 84

Transfer-Power of- by Divisional and District Courts ... ... 85
Transfer from Small Cause Court ... ... ... 140 85

Translation- Rules relating to ... ... ... DOO 32
Trust Suit relating to-not cognisable by Small Cause Court 300 6
U.
Unclassed suits 700 ... ... ... ... 14
V.
Valuation- Intentional over valuation ... ... 106 89

Valuation- Suits - Act ... ... ... ... 15
Value of Suits ... ... ... ... ... 14
Value of suit, not altered by plea of defendant 200 ... 88
Value of suit for removal of Mahant ... ... ..d 88
Value of suit for pre-emption of reversionary right 136 04. 89
Value of suit for registration under s. 77, Registration Act ... 93
Village expenses - Suit for ... ... ... 1 12
W.
Wall right to- Suit for- value ... 0.0 ... C 22
Wards-Court of, suit against-not cognisable by Small Cause Court ... 2
Waste-Suit to restrain- not cognisable by Small Cause Court .. 4

Watercourse-Diversion- suit BE 300 210 200 11
Way-Right ofsuit for ... ... 718 DOC 22
Window- Right to open or close - suit- value 208 218 22
Zah
..
18/16/10 .
.
E
TR HK TO
AU R
麵
OU
JO
T JOD
D 藏
OU E
M 爐
CO a l
L D al
O
R 爐
OU E it
O N 剪
鋼
E l l
TH ca 菜 t 高
鐵 l e
l 麗重
r r
a 強實 i
of 溫 k
t
i ou 鐵賣後 ) r
f t 四( o
a 高
t 熱魚美出
ou l暨魚
l 图
wa 魚爐雪
l
cal 魚蜜湯
畫萬雞歌
無魚 E AT 雞蜜
R 魚面
雪繪雪
G Y 良燒爐爐線
U 鮑
為魚 GEY 海魚爐電
黑 H藥謝
由麵雪鐵 9 電
官連
臺 16
烏魚
傳 (
C 區懷 a 酒
C C f 高
鐵藥 of
高 C C C 燒o f
C f
爐 o
C l l 爐
凍 a
湯 C 爐
康細 C 飲高 C 藏 ur
細 o
C 分
ll
【 a
凍 N
OT
HE C
C 鐵 Ut
凍 I Oou t
圖雪 E
凍 A 西
cuOH
細 C U d
在 G Qan
A C C 鐵
凍 C C
無 C C C
店 oflo
S O f
R oal
FO C lf
oaf l
品湯 lt
C wai f
藥米 f ut le
健 C o
C fs ta
C
手 ou
C nl
麵 aol e
C C lnl
( 線 a,o l
C C l
aall l
l f
電 wi l
或C a

The Punjab Courts Act

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Punjab Courts Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized

by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

2nd Edition. Price Rs. 3.

MUFID.I -AM -3PRESS, LAHORE,

HARVARD LAW LIBRARY

THE PUNJAB COURTS ACT

MADAN GOPAL, M.A.,

2nd Edition-Revised and Enlarged.

PRINTED BY RAI SAHIB MUNSHI GULAB SINGH & SONS, AT THE

THE reception accorded to the work has been sufficiently

The Schedule to the Mofussil Small Cause Court Act

decided up to date by the Chief Court and the High Courts.

The rules framed by the Chief Court relating to the (i)

for revision ; (iii) translation of documents ; (iv) preparation and

expense of Paper -books ; (v) petition-writers ; (vi) supply of

THE territories now administered by the Punjab Government

They may be grouped as follows :—

III. The Punjab west of the Bias annexed at the close of

IV. The Delhi territory transferred to the Punjab Govern

Compiled from various sources.

The first two groups were formed into two Commissionerships

In 1854 , the Judicial Commissioner circulated for the guid

which Code there was a long continued discussion which has at

The first section of the Punjab Civil Code, that relating to

By Act XIX of 1865, seven grades of courts were established

(i ) the court of the Tahsildar. The Local Government was

(iv ) the court of the Assistant Commissioner with full powers ;

(ri. ) the court of the Commissioner ; with power to try suits

(vii ) the court of the Judicial Commissioner ; subsequently

Under this Act, the Local Government invested Judicial

Act XIX of 1865 and IV of 1866 were repealed by Act XVII

In 1884, the Secretary of State sanctioned a scheme for the

strengthen them for appellate purposes, and allow of finality being

Owing to the limitations hus placed on the right of appeal

entertained that the number of possible applications for revision

As a tentative measure seven Divisional Courts presided over

THE PUNJAB COURTS ACT,

THE CHIEF COURT.

4. Constitution of Chief Court and appointment and tenure of judges.

17. Classes of Courts.

18. Civil divisions and Districts.

19. Establishment of Divisional Courts.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES.

39. Appeals from original decrees .

64. Mode of appointment and conferring powers.

THE SCHEDULE.--[ Repealed. ]

ACT No. XVIII OF 1884 .

PASSED BY THE GOVERNOR - GENERAL OF INDIA IN COUNCIL . Sections 1-3.

An Act to amend the Law relating to Courts in the Punjab.

i WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the law relating to Courts

1. (1 ) This Act may be called the Punjab

(3 ) It shall come into force on the first

The following suits are excepted from the cognizance of a

(1) A suit concerning an act or order purporting to be done or made

Municipality at Negapatam . The Company complied with the demand under

(4) A suit for possession of immoveable property or for the recovery

for house-rent to be a suit not cognizable by a Small Canse Court (Article 8

lessee was put in issue.

When a suit is brought in a form cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, 'Section 3.

Plaintiff in his plaint alleged by implication that he held a lease

Plaintiff, a decree-holder, against whom an order for release of certain

A suit to recover a sum of money as payable to the plaintiff under an

(c) for a balance of partnership account, unless the balance has

( ) for wrongful arrest, restraint or confinement ;