Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MISHRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. ALI MOHAMED
The Food Corporation of India, rep. by its Senior Regional Manager
Versus
Mayavaram Financial Syndicate, rep. by the Managing Partner, P. Kalyanasundaram
O.S.A. No. 212 of 1986
Decided On :Decided On : 25-01-1993
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V. MAYAVARAM FINANCIAL SYNDICATE - JURISDICTION - PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - LIMITATION - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 15 - LETTERS PATENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT - CLAUSE 12, 14 - MADRAS CITY CIVIL COURT ACT, 1892 - SECTION 3, 3-A, 6, 16 - PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1882 - SECTION 18, 19, 21 - COURT FEES ACT, 1870 - SECTION 11 - SUIT VALUATION ACT - SECTION 265 - SUCCESSION ACT - ORIGINAL SIDE RULES OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT - ORDER 7 - LIMITATION ACT - ARTICLE 26 - LETTERS PATENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT - CLAUSE 30 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 225 - HIGH COURT - ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION - PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - LIMITATION - TRANSFER OF SUITS - POWER OF THE HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Food Corporation of India, filed a suit in the High Court of Madras against the defendant, Mayavaram Financial Syndicate, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,13,123.30, being the aggregate of three claims arising out of various transport contracts. The defendant objected to the maintainability of the suit on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the value of the subject matter of each claim was below Rs. 1 lakh, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court rejected the defendant's objections and held that the suit was maintainable. The defendant preferred an appeal to the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit notwithstanding that the value of the subject matter of each claim was below Rs. 1 lakh. The court held that the provisions of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires a suit to be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it, did not apply to the High Court's original civil jurisdiction. The court also held that the joinder of the three claims in the suit was not a misjoinder of causes of action and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The court further held that the High Court had the power to transfer the suit to the City Civil Court under the second proviso to Section 16 of the Madras City Civil Court Act, 1892, if it was of the opinion that the suit was within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and should be tried therein.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit notwithstanding that the value of the subject matter of each claim was below Rs. 1 lakh? 2. Whether the joinder of the three claims in the suit was a misjoinder of causes of action? 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 4. Whether the High Court had the power to transfer the suit to the City Civil Court under the second proviso to Section 16 of the Madras City Civil Court Act, 1892?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's original civil jurisdiction is not affected by the provisions of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires a suit to be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. 2. The joinder of the three claims in the suit was not a misjoinder of causes of action as the claims arose out of the same transaction and were connected with each other. 3. The suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff had filed the suit within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 26 of the Limitation Act. 4. The High Court had the power to transfer the suit to the City Civil Court under the second proviso to Section 16 of the Madras City Civil Court Act, 1892, as the suit was within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and should be tried therein.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
MISHRA, J.
1. A Judgment by a learned single Judge of this court on two preliminary issues on which the defendant appellant objected to the maintainability of the suit has been challenged before us in appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this court. The first of the two has been that the suit claim made up of three items consisting respectively of Rs. 49,106.84, 28,434.91 and 35,581.55, and making a total of Rs. 1,13,123.30 has been sought to be maintained on the original side of this court by the plaintiff, avoiding the institution of three different suit all falling beneath the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, and the second has been that the suit made of three items aforementioned is barred by limitation. Learned single Judge, however, has made a reference to Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, which is a prescription as to joinder of several causes of action, and held on the first point as follows:
“The above clause in the Letters Patent was prayed at a time when there was separate Code of Civil Procedure for the High Court. Thereafter a common Code of Civil Procedure has been evolved for all the courts and that Code of Civil Procedure as it stands now reads in its Order 2, R. 3 as follows:
3(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly and any plaintiffs having cause of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
2. Where the causes of action are united, the jurisdiction or the court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit. This statutory provision has an over-riding effect on the provisions in Clause 14 of the Letters Patent dated 28.12.1865. In fact, Clause 14 of the Letters Patent is only an enabling Clause permitting the High Court to join several causes of action in one suit. That does not in any manner dispense the High Court from observing a principle like the one embodied in O. 2, R. 3 C.P.C. It is therefore clear that the claim as it is made up of three claims forming a total of Rs. 1,13,123.30 can very well be presented before this court for being entertained. The issue is answered affirmatively.”
2. On the second objection, he has found that the defendant has raised a vague plea as to the limitation and has accordingly said:
“The plaintiff has not filed its suit on the basis of any account staled between them and signed by the defendant. Its case is that the amount due between them for several transports has not been paid over fully or partially. Therefore, Art. 26 has no application to the facts of the case and it has not been shown that the suit is barred by limitation. This issue is answered in the negative.”
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not made any serious effort to assail the finding on the question of limitation, for in terms of O. 24, R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which rule is attracted to a proceeding on the original side of the court, the court shall pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case maybe disposed of on a preliminary issue, except where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until alter that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. The above, which has been brought into effect after Amendment Act 104 of 1976, has been introduced to avoid protracted litigations, first appeal, etc. and decision of the court on the preliminary issue and on many
AI
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
