The court has the power to withdraw a suit from the lower court and entertain it under Section 24 of CPC, and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction can only set aside a judgment or order if it has resulted in a failure or miscarriage of justice.

1. This suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge. After the trial was over and the case was at the stage of arguments, learned Civil Judge found that the statement of one of the witnesses showed that the value of the suit property was Rs.30 lac. In view of this statement of the witness, the Civil Judge came to conclusion that the matter was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, who could try the suits only up to pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.3 lac and he, therefore, sent the case to the learned District Judge for forwarding the same to this Court since this Court had original jurisdiction beyond Rs.20 lacs. The case was received by this Court through learned District Judge and was renumbered and registered.

2. After the case was registered, counsel for the defendant stated that as the plaint has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, therefore, this Court should start de novo trial and the defendant should be permitted to file fresh written statement. This contention was opposed by the counsel for the plaintiff and arguments have been heard on this issue.

3. A perusal of record would show that the plaint was not returned in this case under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. A plaint can be returned by the Court when it is presented and the Court finds that the subject matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court or that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction. A plaint can be returned on an application of either of the parties with the directions to be presented before the concerned court. In this case, it was a suo motto move of the Court below to send the case to District Judge after it came on record that the value of the property was Rs.30 lacs. The Court requested District Judge that the matter be sent to this Court. When the matter reached this Court, this Court could have given directions that the matter be sent back to the Civil Judge and instead of transferring the matter; Civil Judge should return the plaint. This has not been done rather the matter was entertained by this Court and registered as a suit of this Court.

4. This Court, under Section 24 of CPC, has powers to call any suit from the lower Court to itself. In a way, this Court exercised powers under Section 24 whereby this Court withdrew the suit from the Civil Court and entertained the same. It is not a case of return of plaint.

5. I, therefore, consider that the defendant has no right to ask for de novo trial and also has no right to file fresh written statement. Even otherwise, the mandate of law is very clear that a judgment or an order can be set aside on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction only if it has resulted into a failure or miscarriage of justice. In this case, the stage of the suit is of final arguments. Evidence of both parties has already been recorded and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the suit is continued at the level it was received. In my view, the trial of this case has to be proceeded from the stage at which it was received in this Court.

6. List this suit for arguments and disposal on 30th March 2009.