The date of institution of a suit determines jurisdiction, and recent amendments to the Telangana Civil Courts Act apply prospectively, ensuring that earlier provisions govern pending cases.

JUDGMENT :

G. RADHA RANI, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, in returning the plaint.

2. Notices were served on respondent, but no appearance was made for them.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants, who were the plaintiffs, filed the suit for permanent injunction regarding a passage admeasuring 12.00 x 90.00 feet equivalent to 120 Sq.yards forming part of premises bearing Nos. 1-11-102 to 1-11-107 and 1-11-52, 53 in Sy.No.133/12 vide L.P No.19/1984 situated at Station Road, Kamareddy Town with specific boundaries and valued the suit notionally for the relief of permanent injunction at Rs.15,10,000/- and paid a court fee of Rs.17,526/- under Section 26(c) of A.P Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and filed the same before the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy.

5. The said suit was numbered as O.S No.05 of 2019 and temporary injunction order was also granted in I.A No.45 of 2019 dated 07.03.2019. At the stage of filing written statement, the defendants filed a petition vide I.A No.237 of 2019 to reject the plaint on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction stating the value of the disputed passage consisting of 120 Sq.yards would come to Rs.9,60,000/- @ Rs.8,000/- per Sq.yards and at the stage of counter in the said I.A No.237 of 2019, the counsel for the plaintiffs filed a memo to return the said suit as he intended to file the same in a proper court, upon which the said court returned the said suit to the plaintiffs vide docket order dated 05.08.2019 with a direction to present in the proper court.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that after return of the suit from the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, the same was presented before the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy on 14.08.2019 and the said court also returned the plaint on 01.11.2019 on the ground that the plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs.15,10,000/- which was above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. Thereafter, it was once again presented before the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy on 04.11.2019 and the same was returned again on 14.11.2019 observing that the amendment to Telangana Civil Courts Act came into force with effect from 25.10.2019 raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of Junior Civil Judges up to Rs.20,00,000/- and the pecuniary jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judges up to Rs.50,00,000/- and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District courts was raised to more than Rs.50,00,000/- and as such, returned the suit for presentation before the proper jurisdictional court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants – plaintiffs further submitted that the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy committed material irregularity in failing to see that the amendment to the Telangana Civil Courts Act came into effect in October, 2019 and the same was prospective in operation and relied upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P at Amaravathi in Sriramula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Sanaka Venkateswara Rao and Another, 2020 (1) ALD 506 (AP).

8. As seen from the facts of the case, the suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction and it was notionally valued at Rs.15,10,000/-. The suit was filed on 06.03.2019. The said suit was numbered as O.S. No.05 of 2019, which would show that the District Court accepted the pecuniary jurisdiction and also granted an interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiffs. However, at the req