SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(Raj) 17

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : I.N.Modi
ABDUL SATTAR - Appellant
Versus
JANKIVALLABH - Respondent
Civil Revn. 308 Of 1958
Decided On : 01/22/1960

Advocates Appeared:
Abdul Jalil, ROSHANLAL

The phrase 'a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction' in Section 146(1) CrPC refers to territorial jurisdiction only and not pecuniary jurisdiction.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 146 - INTERPRETATION OF 'CIVIL COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION' - REFERS TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ONLY, NOT PECUNIARY JURISDICTION.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose over a plot of land in Jodhpur, leading to an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to determine possession. The Magistrate, unable to decide possession, referred the matter to the Munsiff, Jodhpur City, under Section 146(1) CrPC. The Munsiff rejected an objection that his pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 2000/- and that the land's value exceeded that amount.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the phrase 'a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction' in Section 146(1) CrPC refers to territorial jurisdiction only and not pecuniary jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 145 CrPC is to resolve disputes quickly to prevent breaches of peace, and that considering the value of the subject matter would delay the process.

Issues: Whether the phrase 'a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction' in Section 146(1) CrPC includes pecuniary jurisdiction or only territorial jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the phrase 'a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction' in Section 146(1) CrPC to mean territorial jurisdiction only. The court considered the purpose of Section 145 CrPC, which is to resolve disputes quickly to prevent breaches of peace, and found that considering the value of the subject matter would delay the process. The court also noted that there is no provision in the CrPC for determining the value of the subject matter in such cases.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and directed the Munsiff to answer the question referred to him by the Magistrate in accordance with law.

Judgment


I. N. MODI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the petitioners Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman against an order of the Munsiff City Jodhpur dated the 15th September, 19,58, in a proceeding under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of the words "a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction" occurring in that section:

( 2 ) ONLY a few facts need be mentioned to bring out the controversy which has arisen in this case. The petitioners here instituted an application under Section 145, Cri. P. C. against the opposite parties with respect to a certain plot of open land lying outside the Siwanchi gate in the city of Jodhpur. This application was filed in the court of the City Magistrate Jodhpur (No. 1 ). As the learned Magistrate did not find himself in a Position to decade as to which of the contending parties was in possession of the land in dispute at the date of the preliminary order, he referred the question of possession for determination to the Munsiff, Jodhpur City, under Sub-section (1) of Section 146. It appears that after some evidence was recorded before the Munsiff, an objection was raised before him that as the valuation, of the land was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff, which is admittedly limited to a sum of Rs. 2000/-, his was not the court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question of possession raised in this case. The learned Munsiff by his order dated 15th September. 1958, repelled this objection and held that the word "jurisdiction" as used in the phrase "a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction" was used in the sense of territorial jurisdiction only. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have come up in the present revision.

( 3 ) IT is in these circumstances that the question of the proper interpretation of the phrase "a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction" as used in Section 146 (1) Cri. P. C. arises in this case.

( 4 ) IT is strenuously contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that only that civil court should be considered to be a court of competent jurisdiction which would have not merely the territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter of possession but which would also have the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to do so. It was further contended in the same connection that the land which was the subject-matter of dispute in these proceedings measured over a lac of square feet and that its value was far beyond Rs. 2000/- which was the maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiffs court. Reference was also made in this connection to Section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that save in so far as otherwise expressly provided, nothing contained in the Code shall operate to give any court jurisdiction over the suit the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction. Learned counsel also places reliance on section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. The contention of learned counsel is that as a result of the combined force of all the provisions referred to above, "a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 146, Cri. P. C. would and should be the court which has not merely the territorial competence to take cognizance of the matter but which is also competent so to do from the viewpoint of its pecuniary jurisdiction,

( 5 ) THE aforesaid argument looks somewhat attractive on the face of it ; but on a very careful and close consideration of the whole matter, I find myself unable to accede to it. I have come to the conclusion to which I have mainly as a result of the policy and the object underlying the provisions contained in Section 145 Cr. P. C. and the nature of the proceeding referred to the civil c








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top