Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Rei Taha S/o Shri Rei Talo – Petitioner
Versus
Biki Tania @ Tanya Higang S/o Late Biki Tacha – Respondent
CRP No. 25 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
(A) Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021 - Sections 14 and 15(3) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, in T.S. No. 19/2023, asserting it should have been filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) due to undervaluation and lack of jurisdiction. The court finds the suit valued at Rs. 5 lakhs falls under the jurisdiction of the Junior Division, necessitating the return of the plaint. (Paras 14, 28, 35)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 21(1) & (2), 115, 151, Order VII Rule 10 - The court emphasizes that objections regarding jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity and that the institution of a suit in a higher court is an irregularity, not a nullity. (Paras 19, 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contest the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, over T.S. No. 19/2023, claiming it should have been filed in the Junior Division due to undervaluation and jurisdictional issues. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court concludes that the suit should have been filed in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as per the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, and orders the plaint to be returned. (Paras 35, 36)
Issues: The main issues include whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the implications of undervaluation. (Paras 16, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdictional objections must be raised promptly, and the suit's valuation determines the appropriate court, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory provisions. (Paras 21, 28)
Result: The civil revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, directing the return of the plaint. (Paras 36, 37)
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. 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 Judg
Jurisdictional objections in civil suits must be raised promptly, and suits undervalued must be filed in the appropriate court as per statutory provisions.
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.
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.
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
