Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
Dr. Vishwanath Raghuvir Sinai Edo..... Petitioner.
Versus
Shri Ashok Dattatray Dande others... Respondents.
Civil Revision Application No. 75 of 1999 and Civil Rev. No. 76 of 1999, decided on 2-12-1999.
Advocates appeared :
J.P. Mulgaonkar, for the petitioner.
S.G. Dessai, Sr.A. with R.B. D’Sa, for the respondents.
The Full Bench of Calcutta High Court has clearly laid down in the case of Bidyadhar Bachar and others v. Mahindra Nath Pas and others, AIR 1925 Call076 that where a Judge has in the proper exercise of his jurisdiction passed a decree for possession and also a preliminary decree for mesne profits, he must be held to have jurisdiction to make a final decree in accordance with his decision. This jurisdiction is not limited. If, as a result of the inquiry directed by him the mesne profits are found to exceed the amount of his pecuniary jurisdiction as regards the value of the suit, the suit is rightly entertained as within the jurisdiction of the Judge and a decree is passed, his power to grant the proper and adequate relief is not affected by any event which increases the value of the relief during the pendency of the suit.
In other words it can be stated that to hold that jurisdiction should depend on the amount for which the final decree is passed, would have the effect and that after the Judge passes a preliminary decree it is found after accounts are taken that the final decree must be for an amount exceeding the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction the entire proceedings before him including the decree passed should be considered as being without jurisdiction. The forum of appeal is determined with reference to the value of the suit and not the amount decreed. The plaintiff is neither required nor bound to state any amount in his application."
In view of the above referred Full Bench decision, the point sought to be raised by the petitioner stands fully answered and no fault can be found with the impugned Order passed by the Additional District Judge where in it ha~ been held that it is the valuation disclosed while filing the suit which will determine the appellate forum and; as such, in the case in hand considering the fact that the valuation disclosed in the plaint was less than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the appeal lies before the District Court and therefore, the same has to be heard and disposed of by the District Court.
2.Both the revision applications arise from the order dated 16th February 1999 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1998 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1998 by the Additional District Judge at Panaji. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has held that the appeal against the unamended as well as amended decree in Special Civil Suit No. 382 of 1979-A passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji would lie before the District Court considering the valuation of the suit.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the suit was initially valued at Rs. 10,810/-. However, the value of the decree ultimately granted by the trial Court exceeded the quantum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. There is no dispute that in case the value of the suit is Rs. 1,00,000/- or above, then the appeal against the decree of the Trial Court in such suit would lie to the High Court whereas in case of suit valued at less than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the appeal against the decree passed therein would lie to the District Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the valuation for the purpose of deciding the forum of appeal should be one which is disclosed from the final decree passed in the suit and not one which is disclosed in the plaint by the plaintiff while filing the suit.
4.In this connection, Shri S.G. D' Sa, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondents, placing reliance upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the matter of (Kazi Syed Saifuddin v. Kasturchand)1, reported in 1999(2) Mh.L.J. 675 has submitted that the forum of appeal would depend upon the valuation of the suit as disclosed in the plaint and not on the valuation of the ultimate relief that is granted by the decree.
5. The question, therefore, which arises for determination is whether the value of the subject-matter as fixed in the plaint should determine the Court to which appeal lies or whether the value of the ultimate relief granted should determine the appellate forum?
6.There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial Court depends upon the valuation disclosed in the plaint. Indeed, in terms of section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the amount or the value of the subject-matter of the suit as disclosed in the plaint. The said section 6 provides that "save insofar as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction." Further, section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. In other words, the scheme of the procedure as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure clearly postulates that every suit has to be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade having jurisdiction to try the same. The provisions in section 6 of the Code reveals that the Court is not entitled to deal with the suits where the value of the subject-matter exceeds the pecuniary limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of such Court. These provisions, therefore clearly indicate that the value of the subject-matter of a suit is of paramount importance in determining the Court in which the suit is to be filed and tried. Besides, the right of appeal accures to the parties to a suit from the date of the institution of the suit according to the law then in force. Considering all the aspects of the matter and after considering various decisions in the matter of (Butta Kannawa Chetti v. Rudrapatta Venkataparasayya)2, A.I.R. 1919 Madras 998, (Ishwarappa Mallashappa v. Dhanji Bhanji)3, A.I.R. 1932 Bombay 111, (Gopal Trimbakrao v. Chimabai Prabhakar)4, A.I.R. 1938 Bombay 464, (Ahmedbhai Kadu
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
