Back
1978 Supreme(AP) 44
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MADHAVA REDDY
Raichander Mohanlal - Appellant
Versus
Permanand Sanghi - Respondent
Decided On : 02-13-78
The City Civil Court consists of several Judges, and each Judge presides over a separate Court. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular Judge is determined by statute and not by the Chief Judge.
Headnote:
CITY CIVIL COURT - ESTABLISHMENT - PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - RETURN OF PLAINT - INTERPRETATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH CIVIL COURTS ACT, 1972 - SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20 - ANDHRA COURT-FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 11(4) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 18 - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: The City Civil Court consists of several Judges, and each Judge presides over a separate Court. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular Judge is determined by statute and not by the Chief Judge. When the value of a suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of an Assistant Judge, the Assistant Judge must report the matter to the Chief Judge to allot the suit to a Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Chief Judge exercises administrative jurisdiction over the City Civil Court as well as the District Munsiffs Courts in the Hyderabad District. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, make it clear that every Judge presides over a District Court. The contention that the entire City Civil Court is one Court and that they cannot be called distinct and separate courts is not tenable. The plaintiff cannot complain of the fact that the evidence is recorded on all the issues which entails a great hardship to him, as some of the witnesses are reported to have died, as he should have insisted upon deciding the issue of valuation first. FINAL DECISION: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming to be the rightful owner of a piece of land. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and alleged that the suit land was worth more than a lakh of rupees. The Assistant Judge found that the value of the suit property exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint. The plaintiff appealed to the Chief Judge, who dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff filed a revision petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the City Civil Court consists of several Judges, and each Judge presides over a separate Court. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular Judge is determined by statute and not by the Chief Judge. When the value of a suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of an Assistant Judge, the Assistant Judge must report the matter to the Chief Judge to allot the suit to a Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Chief Judge exercises administrative jurisdiction over the City Civil Court as well as the District Munsiffs Courts in the Hyderabad District. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, make it clear that every Judge presides over a District Court. The contention that the entire City Civil Court is one Court and that they cannot be called distinct and separate courts is not tenable. The plaintiff cannot complain of the fact that the evidence is recorded on all the issues which entails a great hardship to him, as some of the witnesses are reported to have died, as he should have insisted upon deciding the issue of valuation first.
Issues: 1. Whether the City Civil Court is one Court or several Courts? 2. Whether the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular Judge is determined by statute or by the Chief Judge? 3. What is the procedure to be followed when the value of a suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of an Assistant Judge? 4. Whether the Chief Judge exercises administrative jurisdiction over the City Civil Court as well as the District Munsiffs Courts in the Hyderabad District? 5. Whether the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, make it clear that every Judge presides over a District Court? 6. Whether the contention that the entire City Civil Court is one Court and that they cannot be called distinct and separate courts is tenable? 7. Whether the plaintiff can complain of the fact that the evidence is recorded on all the issues which entails a great hardship to him, as some of the witnesses are reported to have died?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The City Civil Court consists of several Judges, and each Judge presides over a separate Court. 2. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular Judge is determined by statute and not by the Chief Judge. 3. When the value of a suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of an Assistant Judge, the Assistant Judge must report the matter to the Chief Judge to allot the suit to a Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. The Chief Judge exercises administrative jurisdiction over the City Civil Court as well as the District Munsiffs Courts in the Hyderabad District. 5. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, make it clear that every Judge presides over a District Court. 6. The contention that the entire City Civil Court is one Court and that they cannot be called distinct and separate courts is not tenable. 7. The plaintiff cannot complain of the fact that the evidence is recorded on all the issues which entails a great hardship to him, as some of the witnesses are reported to have died, as he should have insisted upon deciding the issue of valuation first.
( 2 ) IN this revision the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised an interesting point with regard to the establishment of "a Court" to be called City Civil court. He contended that the Andhra pradesh Civil Courts Act provides for only one City Civil Court, with Judges of different cadres for cities of hyderabad and Secunderabad. As the city Civil Court constitutes one Court, one Judge cannot pass an order to return the plaint to be presented before another Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction in the same City Civil Court. If a particular Judge finds that according to his cadre he is not competent to hear that particular suit, the learned judge should refer the suit to the chief Judge, City Civil Court, for being allotted and posted before another judge having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further elaborated the point by stating that if the plaint is returned to be presented in proper Court, it necessarily implies that there is another Court and that is contrary to the intendment of the creation of a City Civil Court.
( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the municipal Corporation, on the other hand, contended that the words judge and court are synonymous. Every judge presides over a separate Court. The Judges are given powers under a statute. The pecuniary jurisdiction to a particular Judge in City Civil Court is given by the statute but not by the Chief judge, City Civil Court. The City Civil court consists of several Judges and each Judge is a unit by itself i. e. , each judge presides over a separate Court. For the purpose of administration the city Civil Court may be a single unit, but for the Judicial purpose the Courts are different.
( 4 ) THEREFORE, the point that arises for consideration is that when the value of the suit on the file of the Court of the assistant Judge, exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction the Assistant Judge has to report the matter to the chief Judge to allot the suit to a Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit or the plaint could be returned by the Assistant Judge to be presented in the proper Court.
( 5 ) BEFORE I proceed to note the relevant provisions of the City Civil Courts Act, it would be appropriate to note the facts of the case.
( 6 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit claiming to be the rightful owner of a piece of land measuring Ac. 1-17 cts. situated in S. No. 139 (old S. No. 40) in Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The plaintiff valued the suit land at rs. 7,815/- and paid the court-fee rs. 101-10 on half of the market value under section 24-B on the Andhra court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The 1st defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and alleged that that he is in possession of the suit land. He further alleged that the suit land is worth more than a lakh of rupees. If the suit property is properly valued, it will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The 2nd defendant, municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, also alleged that the valuation of the suit land is grossly undervalued and the Court-fee paid is insufficient and that the market value of the suit land cannot be less than Rs. 15 per square yard and the Court-fee paid is insufficient; in view of the market value of the suit land, the Court (3rd assistant Judge), has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The 3rd assistant Judge framed as many as six issues. Among them issues 4 and 5 are as follows :"4. Whether the suit valuation is incorrect and the court-fee paid is insufficient ? 5. Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?"on issue No. 4, after recording the evidence, the third Assistant Judge found that half of th
