IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the Gram Nyayalaya's jurisdiction is limited to specific types of civil cases, and suits falling outside this scope should be adjudicated by a civil court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. Brijendra Kumar (Advocate Roll-A/B 0457/23), Advocate holding brief of Mr. Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent.

2. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Manikpur, District-Chitrakoot passed in New Original Suit No. 41/2020 (Old Original Suit No.329/2018) (Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh).

3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit for declaring a sale deed registered on 2.6.2018 as a void document as well as for permanent injunction with regard to the suit property. This suit was instituted as Original Suit No. 329 of 2018 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chitrakoot and pleadings were exchanged. The contention is that after coming into force of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008,[Act, 2008], the District Judge by an order dated 11.9.2020 directed that the record of the suit be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya, Manikpur and, accordingly, on 14.9.2020, an order was passed by the court concerned transferring the civil suit to the Gram Nyayalaya in exercise of power under Section 16 of the Act, 2008.

4. It is stated that issue No.5 was framed which was that whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. By an order dated 1.10.2020 the Gram Nyayalaya held that since the counsel for the defendant had made no arguments from which it could be gauged that the Gram Nyayalaya had no jurisdiction, therefore, the Gram Nyayalaya had jurisdiction to decide the case and, accordingly, the issue No.5 was decided in the affirmative.

5. It is stated that despite the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya to decide those types of civil cases which are provided in Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act, 2008, the Gram Nyayalaya proceeded to decide the suit which was for declaring a sale deed as void. It is contended that the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of the Act, 2008 circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalayas, and a suit for declaring a sale deed as void would not lie within the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya. It is further stated that by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2021, the Gram Nyayalaya has not only adjudicated and dismissed the suit, but has exercised a jurisdiction and has recorded evidence in a manner that is not required to be done by a court which is required to adopt a summary procedure for adjudication. Learned counsel has referred to the provision of Section 24 of the Act, 2008 in this regard. It is stated that evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses were recorded in detail as were the evidence of the defendant's witnesses and thereafter the judgment was passed, which is wholly without jurisdiction and is void ab initio.

Learned counsel has referred to the plaint to contend that basis of the suit for seeking declaration of the voidance of a sale deed was undue influence and fraud; that the civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits unless they are expressly or impliedly barred given the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); that Order 5 to Order 20 of the CPC provide a detailed procedure for conduct of suit till its logical conclusion and it is Order 37 of the CPC that provides for summary procedure. Learned counsel has referred to clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, 2008 that defines Gram Nyayalaya, Section 3 of which provides for establishment of Gram Nyayalaya; Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 that deal with jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya and Sections 23 and 24 which provides for procedure in civil cases. It is stated that Section 24 provides for filing of an application and not a plaint. Under Section 23, the provisions of the CPC, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 2008, would apply to the procedure before a Gram Nyayalaya and for the purpose