Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar and another – Appellants
Versus
Vijai Kumar Sharma and another – Respondents
S.C.C. Revision No.181 of 2022
Decided on : 09-12-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 21 – Order XV Rule 5 – U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 – Section 25 – Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 – Suit for possession of immovable property – Determination of the lease – Defendants' application – Supervening amendments – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Facts giving rise to this revision are that S.C.C. Suit was instituted by plaintiff-respondents before the District Judge, Banda, sitting as Judge, Small Cause Court was done, because at time of institution of suit, pecuniary jurisdiction to try a small cause suit with Judge, Small Cause Court, that is to say, Civil Judge in State of Uttar Pradesh, was up to valuation of suit here was valued – Held, Position of law makes it clear that ‘pecuniary jurisdiction’ and ‘territorial jurisdiction’ are different from ‘jurisdiction relating to subject matter’ or inherent lack of jurisdiction – First two have to be raised at earliest opportunity else, these must be deemed to be waived – Remarked by Supreme Court in, legislative policy is not to defeat a concluded trial on merits on basis of a technical objection, like pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction – Precisely is case here, where tenant has allowed trial to proceed through all stages and taken the objection about lack of pecuniary jurisdiction at a stage when, post remand, trial has been concluded and judgment already on anvil of delivery – dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short, 'the Act of 1887'), is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda dated 17.11.2022 made in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2008, rejecting the defendants' application, objecting to the Court's pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this revision are that S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2008 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents before the District Judge, Banda, sitting as the Judge, Small Cause Court. This was done, because at the time of institution of the suit, the pecuniary jurisdiction to try a small cause suit with the Judge, Small Cause Court, that is to say, the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) in the State of Uttar Pradesh, was up to the valuation of Rs. 25,000/-. The suit here was valued at Rs. 57,060/-
3. The suit was, therefore, instituted before the District Judge and tried by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda, who decreed it vide his judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016. A revision against the said decree was carried to this Court by the tenant-revisionist, being S.C.C. Revision No. 50 of 2019. This Court vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 set aside the decree and remanded the suit for trial afresh, except Issue No. 4, the finding whereon was upheld. That issue related to the defence of the tenant being struck off under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
4. Post remand, the tenant-revisionist raised an objection through an application dated 17.11.2022 before the Trial Judge that on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Cause Court vide U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, it was the Judge, Small Cause Court, who was competent to try the suit and not the Additional District Judge, exercising those powers in case of a suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Cause Court. This application has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, trying the suit vide the order impugned dated 17.11.2022.
5. Aggrieved, this revision has been preferred by the tenant-revisionist.
6. Heard Mr. Shailendra, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Gulrez Khan, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.
7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that once the pecuniary jurisdiction was altered by virtue of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the suit that was up for trial before the Additional District Judge in consequence of the order of remand, obliged the learned Judge to direct a return of the plaint for presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction. By rejecting the application questioning his pecuniary jurisdiction, the Trial Judge has assumed jurisdiction not vested in him. The order impugned is, therefore, patently illegal. It is pointed out that when the suit was instituted, going by the valuation thereof, which is Rs. 57,060/-, it was certainly beyond the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Cause Court. But, after remand, in view of the supervening amendments vide U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, that has come into effect from 07.12.2015, the suit is not cognizable by the Additional District Judge, but by the Judge, Small Cause Court. The trial before the Additional District Judge, therefore, is without jurisdiction.
8. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Agarwal since deceased through legal representatives and others v. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and another, (2019) 14 SCC 526. Learned Counsel for the revisionists has drawn attention of the Court to the holding in Om Prakash Agarwal (supra), which reads:
Point of Law - By amendment in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of small causes court was increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh.
Point of Law : Objection as to local jurisdiction of a court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case.
Jurisdictional objections in civil suits must be raised promptly, and suits undervalued must be filed in the appropriate court as per statutory provisions.
Eviction of tenant - Unauthorized occupation of tenant - Intention and admission in pleadings indicates the creation of relationship of landlord and tenant and that the amount paid by the revisionist....
Amendments to pleadings must be permitted to ensure justice unless they alter the case's fundamental character; procedural orders not affecting substantive rights are non-revisable under Section 29(3....
Point of law: Eviction of tenant – Relief of arrears of rent - Court in exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act can interfere on limited grounds
The failure to object to a trial court's jurisdiction waives the right to contest such jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and n....
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
