IMPORTANT POINT
The valuation of the original suit determines the jurisdiction for appeals, irrespective of the counter claim's valuation, as per the provisions of the C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff/ petitioner before this Court, instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction being Original Suit No. 719 of 2010 and looking to the suit property and the relief claimed, the valuation declared was Rs. 50 lacs. In the said suit the defendant/ respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed their written statement as well as counter claim to which the valuation was declared at Rs. 16 lacs. There was never a dispute raised regarding valuation of the suit as well as the counter claim.

3. By common judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 the trial court while dismissing the suit, decreed the counter claim of the defendant/ respondent nos. 1 & 2. Resultantly, petitioner preferred a first appeal before the High Court against the judgment dismissing his suit on the ground that valuation being Rs. 50 lacs, it executed the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of District Judge which being only Rs. 25 lacs. First Appeal came to be registered as First Appeal No. 157 of 2019. In so far as the decree of the counter claim is concerned, the plaintiff/ petitioner preferred a first appeal before the District Judge. The defendant/ respondent nos. 1 & 2 took an objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that for the purposes of jurisdiction it is the valuation of the suit which will matter and therefore, the appeal would lie before the High Court and not before the District Judge. This objection was upheld by the District Judge, Bareilly under his order dated 13.03.2020 holding the appeal to be not maintainable in the court of District Judge on account of pecuniary limit of Rs. 25 lacs to exercise the jurisdiction. Thus, the Misc. Case No. 54 of 2020 was disposed of. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court.

4. It had been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Shreya Gupta that the learned District Judge had wrongly interpreted the relevant provisions of C.P.C. to hold that appeal would lie in a court having pecuniary jurisdiction for valuation of the suit. It was argued that a harmonious construction of the provisions contained under Order VIII Rule 6-A and Order XX Rule 19(2) of C.P.C. would lead to the conclusion that the counter claim for being treated as an independent suit for adjudication, therefore, its valuation would matter in choosing a forum for appeal arising out of the judgment of trial court. It is argued that Order VIII Rule 6-C itself provides that a counter claim cannot exceed the pecuniary limit of the jurisdiction of the court where the suit is pending.

5. So any counter claim with higher valuation would not lie before the concerned court trying the suit.

6. According to Ms. Gupta, therefore, the counter claim inviting an independent adjudication may be by way of common judgment by the trial court, would have to be taken as independent suit for all purpose including its valuation to chose a forum of appeal.

7. The next argument submitted was that Order XX Rule 19(1) and (2) of C.P.C. did not prescribe for regular appeals but for cases where the money decree was passed. It was also argued additionally, that Order XX Rule 19(1) of C.P.C. was only for the purposes of drawing a decree and not for providing a forum of appeal. According to her, the manner and method of drawing a decree has been the object for incorporating the relevant provisions under Order XX of C.P.C. by the legislature. According to learned Advocate Order XX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. had nothing to do with Order XLI of C.P.C.

8. In support of her argument, learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of coordinate bench in the case of Cantonment Board v. Shakuntala Devi, 2018 (5) ADJ 647, a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jag Mohan Chawla & Others v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Others,