IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Rei Taha, S/o. Shri Rei Talo & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Biki Tania @ Tanya Higang, S/o. Late Biki Tacha & Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 25 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Jurisdiction - Title Suit - Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021 - The court analyzed the jurisdictional provisions under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, particularly Sections 14 and 15, determining that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a suit that should have been filed in the Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, regarding Title Suit No. 19/2023, arguing it violated Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, as the suit should have been filed in the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palin.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) improperly assumed jurisdiction over the Title Suit, which should have been filed in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) due to its pecuniary limits as outlined in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021.
Issues: Whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, had the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain Title Suit No. 19/2023.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that objections regarding jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and since the suit was undervalued and fell within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), the proceedings in the Senior Division were improper.
Result: The impugned order dated 26.03.2024 is set aside, and the Title Suit No. 19/2023 is directed to be returned for filing before the appropriate Civil Judge (Junior Division).
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. By filing this revision petition, the petitioners have assailed the competence of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, with reference to territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction in entertaining of the Title Suit being T.S. No. 19/2023 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, on the ground of violation of Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021 as the competent Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palin, Kra Daadi District is available at Ziro. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro in T.S. No. 19/2023 and prays for return of T.S. No. 19/2023 for filing before the appropriate Civil Judge (Junior Division).
3. The case, in brief, is that the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4/plaintiffs, have jointly filed a Title Suit being T. S. No. 19/2023 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, praying for declaration of right, title and interest for the post of President, General Secretary, Vice President and Assistant General Secretary of All Palin, Chambang, Yangte, Gangte and Tarak-Langda Students Union (hereinafter referred to as APCYGTSU) in terms of the election result declared on 16.09.2023 and for perpetual injunction against some of the defendants from interfering in the daily activities as the representatives of the APCYGTSU. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 26/2023 in the said Title Suit by invoking Order 39, Rule 1 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction by way of suspending the order dated 10.11.2023, issued by the President, All Nyishi Student Union (ANSU) for holding fresh election.
4. The pleaded case, as reflected in the plaint, is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/plaintiffs are duly elected President, General Secretary, Vice President and Assistant General Secretary of APCYGTSU in the 7th General Conference cum Election of APCYGTSU held from 15.09.2023 to 17.09.2023. The Fact Finding Committee constituted by the President, ANSU, had never summoned the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/plaintiffs and they were never given an opportunity to place their version, therefore, the report of Fact Finding Committee is illegal and the consequent order dated 10.11.2023 issued by the President, ANSU, for holding fresh election on the basis of the Fact Finding Committee report is without authority.
5. The petitioners (who are Defendants in the Title suit) are assailing the legality of assuming the jurisdiction and entertaining of the T.S. No. 19/2023 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro. Vide order dated 29.02.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro has stayed/suspended the fresh election order issued by the President, ANSU, dated 10.11.2023. The petitioners have filed FAO against the aforesaid order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, which is pending disposal before this Court.
6. Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have jointly filed their written statement in the aforesaid Title Suit and have categorically raised objection by stating that the suit is undervalued and therefore, is not maintainable and proper court fees has not been paid by the plaintiffs (the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein). However, the said contention and objection of the petitioners were overlooked by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, while acknowledging the written statement filed by the petitioners with regard to an objection of its assuming jurisdiction erroneously and have passed the order dated 29.02.2024 and fixed the next date on 26.03.2024 for settlement of issues and submission of list of documents. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners have raised their objection with regard to jurisdiction before the learned Civil Judge (
S. Lianbuangi vs. Lalmuankimi & Ors.
Nandita Bose vs. Ratanlal Nahata
Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives & Ors.
Exl Careers & Anr. vs. Frankfinn Aviation Service Pvt. Ltd.
K. P. Ranga Rao vs. K. V. Venkatesham and Ors.
Om Prakash Agarwal & Ors. vs. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot & Anr.
Miss. Maneck Gustedji Burjarji vs. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza
The court established that jurisdictional objections must be raised promptly, and a suit undervalued must be filed in the appropriate lower court as per the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021.
Jurisdictional objections in civil suits must be raised promptly, and suits undervalued must be filed in the appropriate court as per statutory provisions.
The failure to object to a trial court's jurisdiction waives the right to contest such jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and n....
Point of Law - By amendment in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of small causes court was increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh.
The court ruled that the learned District Judge exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside a village authority's decision and allowing a fresh plaint, which constituted a new suit.
A Title Suit filed without jurisdiction cannot lead to valid execution; the doctrine of lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers to existing litigation outcomes.
Civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters showing procedural irregularities in revenue court decisions, even if some claims are governed by the OLR Act.
Civil courts maintain jurisdiction over trust election disputes, particularly with allegations of corruption, unless explicitly barred by statute.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.