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 not to re-evaluate factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2025, passed in Title Suit No.07/2023, and also the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, in Civil Appeal No.02/2023.

2. Heard Mr. T. Kipa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that, against a Kebang decision dated 15.10.2019 a civil appeal 02/2023 was pending between the petitioner and the respondent before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Leparada District, Basar. The Appeal was remanded to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District on the ground that the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act 2021 as amended provided for appeal against customary court orders before the Civil Judge Junior Division or Civil Judge Senior Division depending on the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. It is further argued that by the impugned order dated 15.05.2023, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, without examining the Memorandum of Appeal converted the same into a plaint and re-registered it as Title Suit 07/2023 even without there being a plaint on record. It is submitted that the matter was registered as Civil Appeal No.02/2023 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Daporijo, and was fixed for hearing along with an application for condonation of delay of 242 days. It is further stated that the value of the suit was Rs. 200/- and, as per the report of the Kebang, the gross value of the disputed land was Rs. 50,000/-, which means that the case ought to have been tried by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Daporijo, and not by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in terms of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act 2021 (as amended).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, according to the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act , 2021 and the Amendment Acts of 2022 and 2023, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) extends to all civil suits where the valuation does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore, the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Daporijo, ought to have remanded the matter to the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in accordance with the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act , 2021 (as amended). The learned counsel further submits that, on a joint reading of Sections 14 and 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act , 2021, as amended in the years 2022 and 2023, and the Kebang decision dated 15.10.2019, the pecuniary value of the subject matter being Rs. 50,000/-, the competent court was the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Daporijo. Another ground taken by the petitioner herein is that there is a clear distinction between a memorandum of appeal and a plaint filed in a suit. However, in the present case, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) converted the memorandum of appeal into a plaint and, without jurisdiction, treated the appeal memorandum as a plaint and proceeded to try the case de novo as a title suit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Rei Taha & 3 Ors. Vrs. Biki Tania @ Tanya Higang & 18 Ors., which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2024 in CRP No. 25/2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present c