Jurisdictional changes in civil suits can resolve preliminary issues without requiring detailed reasoning if the outcome remains the same.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has taken exception to order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 4, Shimla in Civil Suit No.4-S/1 of 2017.

2. The respondents herein have filed a suit for possession of immoveable property i.e. a shop against the petitioner. As per averments made in the instant petition, the respondents have arbitrarily valued the suit for the relief of possession at Rs. 21,00,000/-.

3. The suit was initially instituted in the Court of learned District Judge, as the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the suit valued at Rs. 21,00,000/-, was with the said Court at the relevant time.

4. The petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC with a prayer to frame preliminary issues on the allegations that the respondents/ plaintiffs had intentionally and purposely overvalued the suit. The evaluation of market value of the suit property at Rs. 21,00,000/- was abnormally high. It was also alleged that the respondents/plaintiffs had intentionally overvalued the suit to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court of learned District Judge, so that the petitioner/defendant could be divested of right of first appeal. As per the petitioner/defendant, the suit property was a small shop measuring 5 feet x 7 feet, in which the family members of the petitioner/defendant were running a small business. It was also one of the pleas raised in the application by the petitioner/defendant that the plaint did not contain a statement of valuation of subject matter of the suit in terms of Order 7 Rule 1 (1) of the Code.

5. On the application of the petitioner/defendant, following issues were framed:-

“i) Whether the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD

ii) Whether the suit has wrongly been assessed for the purpose of jurisdiction? OPD”.

6. The parties availed the opportunity to lead the evidence on aforesaid issues. Before the said issues could be decided, a notification dated 17.10.2022 came to be issued, whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judges and District Judges was enhanced. As a result of the said notification, Civil Judges acquired the jurisdiction to decide the suits with a valuation at Rs. 21,00,000/-. The suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was resultantly transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla.

7. In such circumstances, the learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla passed the impugned order holding that the prayers made by the petitioner/defendant by way of application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code, stoodindirectly answered in the affirmative due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judges and hence, there was no need to render detailed reasoning. The learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla further held that in view of the intervening circumstances, the right of the petitioner/defendant to file first appeal has also been protected.

8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC mandated the learned Civil Judges to give detailed reasons for his findings on each issue. He further contended that the Court of learned District Judge was quorum-non-judice at the time of institution of the suit and for such reason a specific finding was required to be returned on the preliminary issues framed in the suit.

9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Even if the preliminary issues framed in the case were decided by the learned District Judge in favour of the petitioner/defendant, the result would have been return of the plaint to the respondents/ plaintiffs to be presented before the Court of Civil Judge. Eventually, by enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, the same result has followed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has also not been able to make out a case of prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioner/defendant. The p