Jurisdictional objections in appellate proceedings must be raised at the earliest opportunity; failure to do so precludes their consideration in review petitions.

ORAL ORDER

This review petition is filed praying this Court to review the order dated 19.11.2024 passed in MFA No.3185/2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent passed an order on 13.06.2014 under Section 85-B of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,34,569/- towards damages for the delay in payment of contribution for the period from January 2009 to June 2013. The same was challenged before the Employees State Insurance Court, Bengaluru in ESI No.27/2014 and the ESI Court vide order dated 13.06.2014 was pleased to allow the said petition in part reducing the damages from Rs.26,34,569/- to Rs.6,00,000/-. The respondent challenged the said order in MFA No.3185/2017 before this Court and this Court having heard the respective counsel for the parties was pleased to allow the said appeal vide order dated 19.11.2024 by setting aside the order of the ESI Court passed in ESI Application No.27/2014.

4. Now the respondent/review petitioner filed the present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC contending that the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court suffers from want of jurisdiction. It is contended that admittedly, the appeal in MFA No.3185/2017 is lack of jurisdiction since the value of the appeal is Rs.26,34,569/- and the counsel referring Section 5(i) of the Karnataka High Court Act , 1961 would vehemently contend that all first appeals against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings, the value of subject matter of which exceeds Rs.15,00,000/- shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than Two Judges of the High Court and other first appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court. The counsel referring this provision would vehemently contend that this Court is not having jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that though the amendment is brought on 19.06.2024 regarding this aspect is concerned, the same has been stayed and the same is not given any effect. The counsel also would vehemently contend that this Court also passed the resolution stating that when the order is stayed in the judicial side regarding amendment is concerned, the same has not been given effect. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Section 21 of CPC cannot be invoked and the High Court Act, 1961 overrides the CPC and hence, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted.

5. The counsel for the review petitioner in support of his arguments relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in MFA No.102577/2014 dated 18.04.2016 wherein also discussed Section 19 of the Civil Courts Act as well as Section 5 of the High Court Act, 1961 and also considered the material available on record and comes to the conclusion that when first appeals lie to the High Court, all such first appeals, whose value of the subject matter exceeds Rupees Fifteen Lakhs, shall be heard by a Bench of not less than two judges of this Court, and other first appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of this Court.

6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1990 CALCUTTA 168 in the case of SOHAN LAL BAID vs STATE wherein also discussion was made with regard to Article 225 of the Constitution of India and held that power to hear specified classes of case, it is derived only from allocation of business among Judges made by Chief Justice, case not cov