Point of Law: Issue as to whether the property involved is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge or not can be raised before the Civil Court and considered after affording opportunities to the rival parties.

JUDGMENT :

Parties are represented by their respective counsels. Considering the nature of the controversy, both the I.A as well as the Civil Revision Petition are being disposed of by this common order.

[2] The grievance of the petitioner is that vide the impugned order dated 19.11.2020 passed in CMA No. 165/2020 arising out of RFA No. 5/2020, the Court of the Addl. District Judge – I, Aizawl not only condoned the delay of 365 days in filing the connected appeal but also remanded the case back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the Heirship Certificate Application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the lower Appellate Court in RFA No. 5/2020 by which the Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the order passed in CMA No. 165/2020.

[3] This Revision Petition was moved on 26.08.2021, on which date Court issued notice to the respondent, returnable by 16.09.2021. Since the respondent was represented on that date by her counsel, an opportunity was granted to file objection to the Civil Revision Petition, if so advised. Pursuant thereto, the respondent has not filed objection to the Civil Revision Petition but has filed I.A(Civil) No. 59/2021 praying for an injunction against the petitioner to restrain him from continuing construction upon the plot of land involved in the Heirship Certificate i.e., LSC No. CAD-546 of 2010. Be it stated herein that while issuing notice in the Civil Revision Petition on 26.08.2021, this Court had stayed the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in both the CMA No. 165/2020 as well as in RFA No. 5/2020. This Court on 26.08.2021 in I.A (C) No. 59/2021 had also passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the construction work over the disputed land. The parties appearing today submit that status quo is being maintained in terms of the direction of this Court till date.

[4.] The basic grievance of the petitioner is that after the death of his father, he obtained Heirship Certificate in respect of the LSC in question and the respondent who is his sister, after a lapse of about one (1) year filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court against the order granting him Heirship Certificate along with an application for condonation of delay. As stated earlier, the learned lower Appellate Court while condoning the delay also remanded the case back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the Heirship Certificate.

[5.] Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned lower Appellate Court was only required to consider as to whether there was sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court. However, the learned lower Appellate Court apart from considering the delay, entered into the merits of the case in the CMA and remanded the case back to the Trial Court. He also submits that although the Heirship Certificate was granted by the Civil Judge, the learned lower Appellate Court remanded the case back to the Senior Civil Judge.

Under the circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the orders passed by the lower Appellate Court may suitably be interfered with by this Court.

[6.] Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that since the respondent is a widowed daughter of their deceased father Sh. F. Sawithuama, she is also entitled to a share of the property of her deceased father. However, the learned Civil Judge without giving any opportunity to the respondent issued the Heirship Certificate to the petitioner and that is why the respondent filed the appeal before the lower Appellate Court. In so far as the remand made by the learned lower Appellate Court to the Senior Civil Judge, the same is due to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court being limited to only Rs. 2 lakhs whereas, the property in question is valued over Rs. 2 lakhs. She therefore submits that the order passed by the lea