Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
MEETA AGARWAL D/O SHR MEENALAL AGARWAL W/O SHRI MANOJKUMAR AGARWAL, – Appellant
Versus
HATHROIGARI GRAH NIRMAN SEHKARI SAMITI – Respondent
CMA/1566/2021

Objection to pecuniary jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in any case at or before settlement of issues.

Headnote:
JURISDICTION - PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - OBJECTION - TIMING - [Section 21 CPC] - Objection to pecuniary jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in any case at or before settlement of issues. Failure to do so will bar the objection from being raised at a later stage.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit in 2008 for declaration, possession, damages, mandatory and permanent injunction with regard to a disputed property. The defendants submitted a written statement denying the averments in the plaint, but did not raise any objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. After recording evidence on all issues, the case was posted for final arguments. At that stage, the defendants filed an application stating that the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The court accepted the application and returned the plaint to the plaintiff for filing before the competent court.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the defendants' objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was not taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and therefore could not be raised at a later stage. The court relied on Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires objections to pecuniary jurisdiction to be taken at the first instance and at the earliest possible opportunity.
Issues: Whether the defendants' objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was taken at the earliest possible opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants' objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was not taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and therefore could not be raised at a later stage. The court relied on Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires objections to pecuniary jurisdiction to be taken at the first instance and at the earliest possible opportunity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned order, dismissed the defendants' application, and restored the suit to its original number. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on a specified date, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1566/2021

Meeta Agarwal D/o Shri Meenalal Agarwal W/o Shri Manojkumar

Agarwal, R/o Plot No. 2, Sector No. 3, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

----Plaintiff/Appellant

Versus

Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti, D-20,

Meeramarg, Banipark, Jaipur Through President Shri

Rampratap S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sen,

Kajod Singh S/o Umed Singh, R/o Arjun Nagar,

Durgapura, Jaipur.

Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Vidhyut Nigam,

Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Rajmata Gayatri Devi W/o Late Shri Mansingh Ji, R/o

Lillypool, Tonk Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

Mitra Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Through President

Rameshwar

Kumawat,

Piramid Properties

And

Investment, Near Kishor Misthan Bhandar, Police Station

Sodala, Jaipur.

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Secretary,

JDA Circle Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

Deependra Sing Alias Banna S/o Shri Bacchan Singh, R/o

4 A, SMS Colony, B-Block, Durgapura, Maharani Farm,

Mansarovar, Jaipur.

----Defendants/Respondents

For Appellant(s)

Mr. Behari Lal Agarwal

Mr. Akash Gupta

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

04/01/2022

Reportable:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2021

passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions

(2 of 8)

[CMA-1566/2021]

Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan -II, Jaipur (for short ‘the learned

court below’) in Civil Suit No. 56/2020 (484/2012) (36/2008) CIS

No. 1551/2014 titled as Meeta Agarwal vs. Hathroigari Grah

Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors. by which the application filed by

the defendants respondents has been allowed and the plaint has

been ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing

the same before the Competent Court.

Before deciding the controversy, it is necessary to mention

the facts of the case. The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred

as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration, possession, damages,

mandatory and permanent injunction with regard to the disputed

property described in Para 1 of the plaint. It was stated in the

plaint that the disputed property was purchased by the plaintiff

from one Balram vide agreement dated 04.01.1992 and the

possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff by said

Balram. On 15.06.1996, allotment letter was also transferred in

favour of the plaintiff by the defendant. Thereafter, boundary wall

was constructed around the disputed property. When the father of

the plaintiff visited the site on 03.02.2006, then he found that

certain Land Mafias had broken the locks of the plot by

trespassing upon it. When he asked them about the right, title of

the property in question, then they started quarreling with the

father of the plaintiff. An FIR was also lodged in this regard and

finally the instant suit has been filed before the learned court

below.

Para 24 and 25 of the plaint deals with the valuation of the

suit and jurisdiction of the Court, which read as under:-

**24& ;g fd cfygkt ekfy;r nkok ckcr~ ?kks"k.kk :i;s

400@&dk;e dh tkdj U;k; 'kqYd :i;s 30@&: ckcr~ vkKkRed

fu"ks/kkKk :i;s 400@& dk;e dh tkdj U;k; 'kqYd 30@&:i;s o

rqM+okus vfrdze.k rFkkdfFkr dksVM+h dh Hkwfe dh ekfy;r

(3 of 8)

[CMA-1566/2021]

10]000@&:i;s dk;e dh tkdj U;k; 'kqYd :i;s 250@& ,oa

ckcr~ csn[kyh o fnyk;s tkus dCtk oknhuh dks vkoafVr Hkw[k.M dh

[kjhn dher jkf'k :i;s 20]000@&:i;k dk;e dh tkdj U;k;

'kqYd 750@&:i;k ,oa fnukad 03-02-2006 dks tcfd izfroknh la[;k

2 o 7 }kjk oknhuh ds mDr Hkw[k.M ij voS/k :i ls vfrdze.k dj

dksBMh dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k rc ls :i;s 1000@&:i;s izfrekg dh

nj ls dksBMh dh Hkwfe ds gtkZ bLrsekyh ds :i esa nkok nk;jh rd

26 ekg dk gtkZ bLrsekyh :i;s 26]000@&:i;k v{kjs Ncchl gtkj

:i;s dk;e fd, tkdj U;k; 'kqYd :i;s 1200@& ij okn&i=

izLrqr gSA bl izdkj dqy dksVZ Qhl 2260@&:i;s ij nkok gktk

izLrqr gSA

25&

;g fd nkok gktk cfygk

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHANANOOP KUMAR DHANDMEETA AGARWAL D/O SHR MEENALAL AGARWAL W/O SHRI MANOJKUMAR AGARWAL, – AppellantVersusHATHROIGARI GRAH NIRMAN SEHKARI SAMITI – RespondentCMA/1566/2021

Objection to pecuniary jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in any case at or before settlement of issues.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
MEETA AGARWAL D/O SHR MEENALAL AGARWAL W/O SHRI MANOJKUMAR AGARWAL, – Appellant
Versus
HATHROIGARI GRAH NIRMAN SEHKARI SAMITI – Respondent
CMA/1566/2021