Proper Course for Court Lacking Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Overview

When a suit is filed in a court that lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, the court''s proper course of action is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing in the appropriate court. This principle is established under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and supported by various judicial precedents.

Key Legal Principles

1. Return of the Plaint:

2. A court that lacks pecuniary jurisdiction should return the plaint rather than dismiss the suit. This is in accordance with Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC, which mandates that if a court finds it lacks jurisdiction, it must return the plaint for presentation to the proper court Dimbeswar Bhuyan Atoi VS Jatindra Ch. Mahanta - Gauhati.

3. Cognizability of the Suit:

4. The court must first determine whether the suit is cognizable by the class of court to which it belongs. If the suit is cognizable, the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not warrant dismissal; instead, the plaint should be returned Dimbeswar Bhuyan Atoi VS Jatindra Ch. Mahanta - Gauhati.

5. Judicial Precedents:

6. The Supreme Court in Raizada Topan Das vs. M/s. Gokal Chand (AIR 1964 SC 1348) emphasized that if a suit is filed in a court that is not competent to hear it due to pecuniary limits, the plaint should be returned rather than dismissed Dimbeswar Bhuyan Atoi VS Jatindra Ch. Mahanta - Gauhati.
7. The High Court has reiterated that a trial court does not have the jurisdiction to dismiss a suit solely on the grounds of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction if the suit is otherwise cognizable Dimbeswar Bhuyan Atoi VS Jatindra Ch. Mahanta - Gauhati.

Procedural Implications

• Objection to Jurisdiction:

• According to Section 21(2) of the CPC, objections regarding the competence of a court concerning its pecuniary limits must be raised at the earliest opportunity. If not raised, such objections cannot be entertained by appellate or revisional courts unless there has been a consequent failure of justice Umadutt Jhunjhunwala VS Suraj Kr. Longani - GauhatiOM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. VS VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT - Supreme Court.

• Consequences of Non-Compliance:

• If a party fails to raise the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction at the appropriate time, they may be deemed to have waived their right to object, and the court may proceed with the case on its merits On the death of Mazid Ali (the plaintiff) his legal heirs Mustt. Maimuna Begum and Ors VS Sri Lakshman Rabidas and Ors - GauhatiOM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. VS VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT - Supreme Court.

Summary of Findings

• The proper course for a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing in the appropriate court, rather than dismissing the suit.
• The court must assess whether the suit is cognizable; if it is, the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not justify dismissal.
• Parties must raise objections regarding jurisdiction promptly; failure to do so may result in waiver of the right to object.

Recommendations

• Ensure that any objections regarding jurisdiction are raised at the earliest opportunity to avoid waiving the right to contest.
• If representing a plaintiff, prepare to refile the plaint in the appropriate court if it is returned due to lack of jurisdiction.
• Monitor the valuation of the suit closely to ensure it aligns with the jurisdictional limits of the court in which it is filed.

References: Dimbeswar Bhuyan Atoi VS Jatindra Ch. Mahanta - GauhatiUmadutt Jhunjhunwala VS Suraj Kr. Longani - GauhatiOM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. VS VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT - Supreme CourtOn the death of Mazid Ali (the plaintiff) his legal heirs Mustt. Maimuna Begum and Ors VS Sri Lakshman Rabidas and Ors - Gauhati]