The pecuniary jurisdiction of an Appellate Court is determined solely by the provisions of the Civil Courts Act, and not by the court fee valuation under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

JUDGMENT

Challenge in this appeal is against an order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge – I, Mavelikkara in AS No.9 of 2025. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge returned the memorandum of appeal and also the petition to condone delay along with documents for presenting before proper Court as the valuation of the suit is Rs.36 lakhs.

2. The appellant has approached this Court contending that the learned Additional District Judge was not correct in returning the appeal as also the application to condone the delay. According to the appellant the challenge in the appeal is confined to the alternate relief granted in the suit. In the suit the learned Sub Judge directed to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest @ 9% to the plaintiff. The appellant contended that as the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are only for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest, the appeal was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that in view of Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act, the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court is decided on the basis of valuation of the suit. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Sivasankaran v. M/s.Sreekanth Enterprises [2024 KHC 7275] in support of his contentions. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand relied on Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and contended that the appellant is required to pay the court fee only with respect to the relief granted by the Trial Court and the value of the relief being within the limits, the appeal was maintainable before the District Court.

4. I find no merit in the appeal as the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court is governed only by Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act. Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act has no bearing in the matter of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The position of law is clear from the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and also from the judgment in Ramanan v. Chitrasenan [2007 (2) KLT 11] followed by the learned Judge in the judgment cited.

Therefore this appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the appellant to seek exclusion of the period of pendancy of the instant appeal before this Court in the context of limitation, when an appropriate appeal is filed before the proper forum.