Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Rajeswaran, J.
Sri Sowdeswari Charitable - Appellants
Versus.
S.Rajan & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2313 and 2314 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2010
Decided on : 15.10.2012
Civil Courts Act – Section 12, 15 to 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 92, 115 – Permanent Injunction – Defendants 1 and 3 filed C.R.P.(PD)No.2313/2010 before this Court and they are aggrieved by the order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.810/2009 in O.S.No.130/2009 dated 17.03.2010. – Very same defendants 1 and 3 filed C.R.P.(PD)No.2314/2010 and this time they are aggrieved by the order passed by the very same District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.524/2009 in the very same suit i.e. O.S.No.130/2009. – Held, Provisions of Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act specifying the pecuniary limits of District Courts and Subordinate Courts, is subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. – In view of the express provisions of Section 92 specifying the Courts which will have jurisdiction to entertain Suits under that Section, neither the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Code nor the provisions of Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act will apply to such Suits. – Section 92 is a self contained provision, and conferment of jurisdiction in regard to Suits under that Section does not depend upon the value of the subject matter of the Suit. – Therefore, insofar as the Suits under Section 92 are concerned, the District Courts and Subordinate Courts will have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits. – Court find that the learned District Judge had held that he had jurisdiction because the value of the subject matter was Rs.10 lakhs, apparently keeping in view, Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act. – Court make it clear that the pecuniary limits mentioned in Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act, do not apply to Suits under Section 92 of the Code. – In fact, if Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act is applied to decide the jurisdiction of Courts with reference to Suits under Section 92 of the Code, it will then lead to the following anomalous position: The District Court will have jurisdiction if the vlaue of the subject matter exceeds Rs.5 lakhs. – The Subordinate Court will have jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter exceeds Rs.1 lakh but does not exceed to Rs.5 lakhs. – That would mean that a Suit under Section 92 of the Code, where the subject matter does not exceeds Rs.1 lakh, cannot be filed in any Court as Section 92 confers jurisdiction only on District Court and Subordinate Courts. – This obviously was not intended. – It is very clear that the provisions of Section 92 do not give room for any interpretation and therefore, the reliance placed on by the 1st Additional District Judge on Section 3(A) of the Civil Courts Act is misconceived as Section 92 CPC will not grant jurisdiction on Additional District Courts. – Revision Petitions Allowed
The defendants 1 and 3 filed C.R.P.(PD)No.2313/2010 before this Court and they are aggrieved by the order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.810/2009 in O.S.No.130/2009 dated 17.03.2010.
2. The very same defendants 1 and 3 filed C.R.P.(PD)No.2314/2010 and this time they are aggrieved by the order passed by the very same District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.524/2009 in the very same suit i.e. O.S.No.130/2009.
3. Since a common order has been passed in both I.A.No.524/2009 and I.A.No.810/2009 on 17.03.2010, a common order is being passed by me also to dispose of both the revision petitions. Thus, the facts which are necessary for deciding the issues are as follows:
O.S.No.130/2009 has been filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:
"In these circumstances, it is necessary to have the defendants 2 to 8 restrained from the activities of the Trust and all its institutions like the School.
(2) Removal of the All Board Members from important Posts like President, Secretary, etc.
(3) Further dis-qualified members from becoming a Trustee in future.
(4) Criminally proceed against them and have them punished for recklessly risking the lives of children, staffs and Public by making them use the unauthorized constructions without approval and for furnishing for false information to the District Collector for getting School License and also
(5) Recover compensation of money from these members.
The plaintiff submits that they are entitled to Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 2 to 8 from
(1) Acting as Trustees of the first defendant Trust
(2) Further use their position as President, Secretary, etc. or any other Office bearers and further
(3) From carrying out their threat of taking action against the Plaintiff with a force of feigned Trust majority And
(4) To render total accounts for all misleads done by them in putting up constructions etc. without the approval of the authorities and also for losses caused by them to this Trust as also to its parent Trust the Sowdeswari Charitable Trust."
4. They also filed I.A.No.524/2009 under Section 92 CPC to grant leave to institute the suit seeking the reliefs against the defendants.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 in I.A.No.524/2009 filed a counter statement and opposed the granting of leave under Section 92 CPC.
6. The defendants in O.S.No.130/2009 have filed I.A.No.810/2009 under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint.
7. In I.A.No.810/2009, the defendants have stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is a scheme suit and after filing and numbering the suit, they filed an application in I.A.No.524/2009 under Section 92 CPC. They have further stated that as per Section 92, leave should be obtained first before numbering the suit, but, in this case, suit itself was numbered and taken on file without granting leave, as is evident from the application in I.A.No.524/2009. Hence, they prayed for the rejection of the plaint itself.
8. I.A.No.810/2009 was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing a counter stating that on such technicalities the plaint should not be rejected.
9. I.A.Nos.524/2009 and 810/2009 were taken up together by the 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and by order dated 17.03.2010, the trial court allowed I.A.No.524/2009 by granting leave and dismissed I.A.No.810/2009 filed by the defendants to reject the plaint. Aggrieved by the common order dated 17.03.2010, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, both the above revision petitions have been filed by the defendants 1 and 3 under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code.
10. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the entire documents available on record.
11. A perusal of the common order would show that before the 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, an objection was raised on behalf of the revision petitioners that only the Principal District Court and Sub Court would have jurisdi
SupremeToday
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
