The main legal point established in the judgment is that a defect of jurisdiction, whether pecuniary or territorial, cannot be cured and can be set up at any stage of the proceedings.

Pankaj Mithal, J. –

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri K.K. Twiari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The defendant-revisionist has filed this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the Judgment and order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in exercise of its power as Small Cause Court decreeingSCC Suit No. 10 of 2015, Mohd. Sarfraj v. Tejumal.

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that on account of the valuation of the suit in view of the amendment to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the suit was to be decided by the Small Cause Court presided over by the senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division) of the district.

4. Sri Tiwari accepted the above position but contends that such an objection was not taken by the defendant-revisionist, at the earliest opportunity, at the time of arguments in the court below and, as such, he cannot be permitted to raise it at this juncture.

5. In SCC Revision No. 278 of 2016, Shri Shobhit Nigam v. Smt. Batulan and another decided by me, vide Judgment and order dated 29.8.2016. I have held that with effect from 7.12.2015, in view of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the jurisdiction to try all suits between the lessor and lessee for rent and eviction under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as applicable to the State of U.P. upto the valuation of Rs.1 lakh, irrespective of the date of institution of the suit vests in the small cause court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and that the District Judge/Additional District Judge would have jurisdiction to decide such cases of higher valuation, above Rs.1 lakh only.

6. In view of the above decision, as the valuation of the present suit happen to be Rs. 41,400/- it was cognisable and triable by the Small Cause Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not by the District Judge/Additional District Judge. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge on the face of it appears to be without jurisdiction.

7. The Apex Court in case of R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Ltd. v. Shree vallabh Glass Works Ltd., AIR 2003 Supreme Court 294, has held that in view of Section 21 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, objection as to the place of suing should be taken by the party concerned in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and that objection to this effect shall not be allowed by the appellate or revisional court.

8. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 Supreme Court, five judges Bench of the Supreme Court has observed as under: -

"It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even a collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether, it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pose any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties."

9. The above decision clearly lays down that the defect of jurisdiction whether pecuniary or territorial or of subject matter cannot be cured and that it can be set up at any stage of the proceedings.

10. In the present case, the change in territorial jurisdiction had come into force with effect from 7.12.2015 only and it cannot be said that the defendant-revisionist had delayed in taking objection to the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court though there may not be anything to show that it was taken in the court below during the course of the arguments.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned Judgment and order dated 12.8.2016 is hereby set aside and the matter is reman