The need for harmonious and constructive interpretation of procedural laws to expedite proceedings and serve the interest of justice.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 28th March, 2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for treating the suit, being Suit No.29/2011 in continuation of the old suit and hearing the said suit from the stage of final arguments and adjudicate upon the remaining issues framed in Suit No.770/2007 was dismissed.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession as well as injunction against the respondents/defendants (Suit No. 770/1993). Circumstances that led to the suit are as follows:

i. That petitioner is the owner of property “MIG DDA Flat bearing No.3, Pkt D Phase II, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, situated on 2nd floor” (hereinafter referred to as the “said property”) having purchased the same from Shri Ashok Kumar Kaushal and all relevant documents were executed in favor of petitioner and same is duly registered.

ii. Due to some urgent need of money the petitioner approached Shri Rakesh Chopra (respondent No.5) for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- against a mortgage of the said property and handed over the documents thereof. Thereafter when the petitioner went to Shri Rakesh Chopra to recover the property papers, he refused to return them and thereafter transferred the suit property in the name of respondent no. 1 by way of fabricated and forged documents.

iii. Thereafter the respondents by force and illegal means evicted the petitioner from the suit property following which many FIRs were filled and the respondent was taken in police custody on account of committing forgery. Also stated, that due to the pressures exerted by the respondents, the petitioner was compelled to stay in a tenanted premises. Upon request of the petitioner to hand over the possession of the suit property, the respondents threatened to sell off the same so that the petitioner cannot recover possession thereof. Hence the suit was filed.

3. By order dated 4th May, 1999, the learned Civil Judge framed six issues.

4. The petitioner examined 11 witnesses in support of her case including herself. On other hand, the respondent No.1 examined herself in support of her case. The other respondents did not lead any evidence. The matter was put up for final arguments on 27th August, 2010 and it was again put up on 4th September, 2010 and during the course of arguments, the Court treated issue No.1 as preliminary issue.

5. On 7th September, 2010, the said preliminary issue No.1 about the pecuniary jurisdiction was decided against the petitioner holding that the suit had to be valued at least at Rs. 5,00,000/- for the relief of possession and directed the petitioner to pay the deficient court fee on 21st September, 2010. The issue No.1 reads as under:

“1. Whether the suit property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction.”

6. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 24 read with section 151 CPC for transfer of suit from Civil Court to the Court of Additional District Judge for contesting the suit on merit. The said transfer petition, being M-68/2010, was listed for hearing on 15th September, 2010, 29th September, 2010 and 11th November, 2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application before the Civil Judge under Order VII, Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC for transfer of suit to the Court of District Judge who is having the pecuniary jurisdiction. By order dated 27th November, 2010 the civil Judge returned the plaint in accordance with rules so prescribed. It was stated in the order that the application under Order VII, Rule 10A was permitted to be withdrawn as application under Section 24 was pending. On 6th December, 2012 the learned District Judge held that since the suit is not pending before the learned Civil Judge, the application under Section 24 CPC was being dismissed as redundant. The same was partly allowed with the direction to return the plaint after obtaining the certified copies of the same and after necessary endorsements as per rules.

7. The learned District Judge on 18th M