022-NLR-NLR-V-71-J.-BEMPY-Appellant.-and-J.-PETER-Respondent.pdf
MANICAVA8AGAR, J.—Bempy v. Peter
W
1066Present: Manlcavasagar, J.
J.BEMPY, Appellant, and J. PETER, RespondentS. C. 136165—C. R. Balapitiya, 27105
Rural Courts—Action brought in Court of Requests for recovery of money—Awardof a sum falling within exclusive jurisdiction of Rural Court—Invalidity—Rural Courts Ordinance [Cap. 8), s. 11—Civil Procedure Code, a, 636.
Where a person brings an notion in the Court of Requests for the recoveryof an amount which is within the monetary jurisdict ion of that Court, the Courthas no power to award an amount which falls within the exclusive jurisdictionof the Rural Court.
Ar:
PEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Balapitiya.
P.A. D. Samarosekem, for the Defendant-Appellant.
R. D. C, de Silva, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
June 30,1966. Manicavabagab, J.—
This appeal raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Court ofRequests in awarding damages in an amount which is within theexclusive jurisdiction of the Rural Court; it was not raised or consideredin the orginal court, but that does not preclude the issue being determinedon this appeal.
The action was for recovery of Rs. 200/-, being the plaintiff’s shareof the value of rubber trees, on two lands described in the plaint, cutand removed by the defendant. The onus of establishing that he wasentitled to this amount, or in an amount in respect of which the trialcourt had jurisdiction was on the plaintiff; ho failed in this, for thelearned Commissioner found on the evidence that the plaintiff wasentitled to damages in respect of the trees on one land only, and awardedhim Rs. 40/-. The amount thus awarded fell within the exclusivejurisdiction of the Rural Court. The issue therefore is, can the plaintiffby bringing his action for an amount which is within the monetaryjurisdiction of the court in which it is brought, be awarded by thatcourt an amount which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of theRural Court? Section 11 of the Rural Courts Ordinance (Chapter 8),and Section 636 of the Civil Procedure Code (Chapter 86) are relevantto the consideration of this question. Section 11 which relates to thejurisdiction of the Rural Court provides that an action which falls withinits exclusive jurisdiction shall not be entertained, tried or determinedby any court established under the Courts Ordinance. Section 636
96
MANTCAVA8AGAR, J.—Bempy v. Peter
provides that where the want of jurisdiction is caused by reason of theexclusive jurisdiction of any Village Tribunal (Now Rural Courts byOrdinance 12 of 1945) the averment in the plaint made in pursuance ofSection 45 shall be considered as traversed, whether the defendant inhis answer is silent in reference to it or not : and it shall be the duty ofthe court to dismiss the action. It follows from these two provisionsthat the learned Commissioner, once he found that the quantum hecould award fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rural Court,should have dismissed the action. The fact that the action was institutedfor an amount within the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests is irrelevant.I am fortified in the opinion I have expressed by a decision of this courtin the case of William Singho v. Edwin Singho1 where this identicalquestion was decided.
I set aside the judgment, and dismiss the plaintiff’s action with costs.This decision should not prevent the plaintiff from bringing an actionin the Rural Court, if he chooses to do so.
Judgment set aside.
» {1957) 59 N, L. R. 18.