@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. A short question which is raised for consideration inthis revision by the revision applicant is whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiciton
todirect him to grant his consent and further to direct the Nagpur Corporation authorities to restore the water Supply of the non applicant/tenant.
2. Briefly the facts are that plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises. He filed the suit for egectment of certain water charges and for damages
againt the defendant who occupied the suit premsies as his tenant. During the pendency of the suit before the Court of Small Causes th water
connection of the defendant was disconnected bythe corporation for non-payment of water charges. He filed an applicatioin Exh. 24 in the Court
of the Small Causes to direct the plaintiff/landlord to give his consent and to direct the corporation authorities to restore the water supply to the
defendant at is have cost even though the plaintiff might not have granted his conssnt. The plaintiff opposed the said application of the
defendant/tenant on the ground the that court of Small Causes has ;not jurisdiciton to give any such directions to him, The learned court of Small
Causes, however, held that it has power topass such an order undr S. 151 of the Civil P. C. (forshort ""CPC"") He therefore, directed the plaintiff
togive his consent. He further directed that if the plaintiff does not give his consent still without waiting for his consent the Nagpur Corporation
authorities houle restore the water suply to the defendant/tenant at his costss on the basis of the order. He also directed that the plaintiff/landlord
whould not obstruct in the process otherwise than by due course of law. Being aggrived the plaintiff/landlord has preferred the instant revision in
the court.
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has urged before me theat the nature of relief claimed bythe defendant/tenant was in the nature of he
mandatory injunction as well as a prohibitory order also. According tohim a suit toobtain injunction was barred from the jurisdiction of the Court of
Small Causes by virtue of tiem 17 of the Second Schedult of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. His submission therefore, is that if no
to suit of obtain injunction could lie in the Court of Small Causes the said Court could not exercise any power under S. 151 of the CPC to pall any
orders in the nature of an injunction. The learned counselforthe defendant/tenant has however supported the impugned order under the inherent
powers of the Court under S. 151 of the CPC for which reliances is placed upona decision of the Supreme Court int;he case of Manohar Lal
Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal,
4. In my view, the decision of the supreme Court relied uponby the defendant/tenant is of no assistance to him in the facts of te instant case. In the
said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the power of the Regular civil Couurt under S. 151 of the CPC to issue injurinctions in cases
notcovered by O. XXXIX, c. 1 and 2 of the CPC It may be sern that the regular Civil Court had power to issue injuncations and , therefore, in
cases not covered by XXXIX, Re, 1 and 2 of the CPC it is no to it toexercise its inherent power under 151 of the CPC such is not the case
............ the Court of Small Causes is concerned may be seen that the Court of Small Causes Court of limited jurisdictino S. 15(1) of Provicial
Small Cause Courses Act exclued certain suits form the jurisdic on the Courts of Smal Court I, e. suits which are specified in the Second Schedule
of the above Act. As already pointed out item 17 of ;the Second Schedule of the above Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court in
regard toa suit to obtain an injunction.
4A. It cannot be disputed that the nature of direction claimed bythe defendant/ tenant by his application Exh. 24 is a direction inth enature of a
mandatory injuncation. Further the impugned order of the learned trial Court would show that it has also issued a prohibitory order against the
plaintiff topreveent him form obstruction the process otherwise than in due course of law. No suit to claim such reliefs could lie before the Court of
Small Causes ;because of the express exclusion in item 17 of the Second Schedule. It there is not substantive power tot he Court of Small Causes
to grant injunctionas such suits were exempoted form its cognizance it was not opentoits toexercise the said power by recourse to S. 151 of the
CPC Section 151 of the CPC postualtes that the court has power to gant such a relief. It there is no power to grant such a relief S. 151 cannot
assist the Court to creact such a power. In other words the powers which are specifically barred by the Second Schedule of ;the above Act
cannot be exercised by the Court of Small Causes under S. 151 of the CPC. The above contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff is therefore,
well-founded and has tobe accepted.
5. The learned counsel for the defendant has, however, informed me that before the interim order of stay was communicated to the defendant his
water supply was restored by the Nagpur Corporation. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has agreed that the watere supply ofhe defendant
which is now resported would lnot be interfered with by him because of the setting aside of the impugned order of the learned trail court.
6. In the result. The instant revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learened trial Court is set aside. However, the plaintiff shallnot interfer
with the water supply of the defendant already restored to him by reason of the fact that the impugned order of the learned trial Court is set aside.
Costs of the revision are saddled upon the defendant.
7. Revision allowed.