The central legal point established is that a court's jurisdiction is limited by pecuniary limits, and actions taken beyond such limits are null and void.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The defendants in O.S.No.131/06 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam are the petitioners in this O.P., filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The subject matter of that suit was valued at Rs. 3,45,500/-. Obviously, going by pecuniary jurisdiction, an appeal against the decree passed by the trial court lie only to this Court in terms of the provisions of the Civil Courts Act. However, the petitioners filed an appeal as A.S. 267/09 before the District Court, Kottayam along with an application for condonation of delay in filing that appeal. They also filed certain interlocutory applications to summon witnesses in support of the application for condonation of delay.

2. It appears that the District Court did not notice the defect in the institution of the appeal on a ground referable to the pecuniary jurisdiction. It proceeded to take up the appeal with the application for condonation of delay and ultimately dismissed that application.

3. The defendants, on legal advise, filed R.F.A.114/11 before this Court challenging the decree in O.S.131/06. At the stage of admission, though initially defendants (appellants) took the stand that the appeal filed by them before the District Court was incompetent, on further deliberation, it was thought fit for the appellants to seek relief against the proceedings before the District Court. O.P.1357/11 was accordingly filed.

4. We are of the view that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the decree passed in O.S.131/06 of the Sub Court, Kottayam having regard to the pecuniary limits in terms of the Civil Courts Act. The District Court also did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and enter on an adjudication and issuance of order thereon. Following the law laid by the Apex Court in Kiran Singh & Others v. Chaman Paswan & Others,(1954 KHC 475 : AIR 1954 SC 340 : 1955 (1) SCR 117 : 1954 (2) MLJ 60 : 1954 ALJ 551), we are of the view that the subject matter of this litigation in so far as it relates to an appeal from the decree of the trial court could not have been entertained as a subject matter before the District Court and therefore, the action taken by the court below in passing orders on the delay petition and other interlocutory applications filed in AS.267/09 are non-est. They are null and void. It is declared so.

5. In the result, this OP is allowed and the orders impugned herein are vacated. The proceedings in A.S.267/09, including the interlocutory applications therein, are declared as null and void. The District Court, Kottayam is directed to reject the appeal memorandum in A.S.267/09 and order refund of the entire court fee paid thereon subject to deduction of any due commission. We make this order in preference to the order directing return of the appeal memorandum since RFA.114/11 has already been instituted before this Court against the decree of the trial court. The OP is ordered accordingly.