M.C. Sangrur v. Kailash Wati

The parties to the suit adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

3.2.

On appraisal of evidence vis-à-vis pleadings, the

Aggrieved, defendants preferred first appeal, which stands dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur. 5.

At the outset, counsel for plaintiff/respondent has argued that jurisdiction of Civil Court would be barred under Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Committee Act, 1911. Further it is a matter involving only Rs.385/- and the appeal is pending for the last 30 years, the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 615. As per Nagarpalika Thakurdwara's case (supra), once the recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25000/- in the original suit, no second appeal would lie and Section 102 C.P.C. would apply in such cases. Further the Supreme Court held that the purpose behind enactment of Section 102 C.P.C. is to reduce the quantum of litigation so that courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meager and not to much consequence. 6.

Counsel for the defendants/appellants has not been able to cite any contrary judgment.

7.