Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.MADHAVA RAO
Raichander Monhanlal - Appellant
Versus
Permanand Sanghi - Respondent
Decided On : 02-10-78
CITY CIVIL COURT - ESTABLISHMENT - PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - RETURN OF PLAINT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - Each Judge of the City Civil Court presides over a separate court, and the City Civil Court is not a single, unified court. Therefore, 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 for allotment to a Judge with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction, rather than returning the plaint to be presented before another Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction in the same City Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, valuing the suit land at Rs. 7,815.00 and paying court fee of Rs. 101-10 on half of the market value. The defendants alleged that the suit land was worth more than a lakh of rupees and that the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The 3rd Assistant Judge framed issues on the valuation of the suit and the court's jurisdiction, and found that the half of the market value of the suit property came to Rs. 11,948.00, exceeding his pecuniary jurisdiction. He returned the plaint and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee and present the plaint in the proper court. The plaintiff appealed to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 is not a single, unified court, but rather consists of several judges, each of whom presides over a separate court. Therefore, 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 for allotment to a Judge with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction, rather than returning the plaint to be presented before another Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction in the same City Civil Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the City Civil Court is a single, unified court or consists of several judges, each of whom presides over a separate court. 2. Whether an Assistant Judge, upon finding that the value of a suit exceeds his pecuniary jurisdiction, should return the plaint to be presented before another Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction in the same City Civil Court or report the matter to the Chief Judge for allotment to a Judge with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act No. 19 of 1972) provides for the establishment of a City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try, and dispose of all suits and proceedings of a civil nature arising in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. 2. Section 4 of the Act provides for the appointment of judges to the City Civil Court, including a Chief Judge, Additional Chief Judges, Additional Judges, and Assistant Judges. 3. Section 5 of the Act defines the jurisdiction of the judges of the City Civil Court in original suits and proceedings. The Chief Judge, Additional Chief Judges, and Additional Judges have jurisdiction over all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, while Assistant Judges have jurisdiction over suits and proceedings not exceeding Rs. 10,000.00 in value. 4. Section 6 of the Act provides for the distribution of work in the City Civil Court, and authorizes the Chief Judge to make arrangements for the proper distribution of business among the various judges. 5. The scheme of the Act indicates that each judge of the City Civil Court presides over a separate court, and that the City Civil Court is not a single, unified court.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Assistant Judge had properly returned the plaint and that the plaintiff should have requested the court to frame an issue and decide the question of pecuniary jurisdiction before entering the trial.
( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed by the plaintiff against the Judgement of the Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C. M. A. No. 79 of 1976, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, returning the plaint in O. S. No. 368 of 1969 to be presented before proper Court.
( 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 or Hyderabad and Secunderabad. As the City Civil Court Constitutes one Court, one Judge cannot pass an order to return the plain 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, 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 unity by itself i. e. , each Judge presides over a separate court. For the purpose of administration the City Civil Court may be a single unity, but for the judicial purpose the Court 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 gts. situated in s. No. 139 (old S. No. 40) in Ameerpet Hyderabad. The plaintiff valued the suit land at Rs. 7,815. 00 and paid the court fee of Rs. 101-10 on half of the market value under s. 24-B of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The Ist 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. 00 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 Asst. Judge found that half of the market value of the suit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
