The Jharkhand High Court observed that there is no illegality if the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction entertains the suits valued below or up to ₹5 Lakh.

The Court was considering a Civil Miscellaneous Petition against order of Civil Judge whereby and where under the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the C.P.C. was rejected.

The single-bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, "when the original suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs at that time, the learned court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in that suit the written statement was also filed and after passing of the amendment act in regard to exercising the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif, if this application was moved by the petitioners/defendants, the same could have been disposed of rightly by the learned trial court which bears no infirmity or illegality at all."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Shashank Shekhar while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rahul Kumar Gupta.

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Original Suit was instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs against the defendants including the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the value of the suit was valued at Rs. 5 lacs.

On behalf of the Petitioners, original defendants, an application was given under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Civil Procedure Code before the court concerned and the same was rejected by the court concerned on the ground that issue could be decided by the Court by framing the issue whether the suit is undervalued or not.

It was further submitted that the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I was not empowered to decide the application itself because the valuation of the suit being up to Rs.5 lacs for the same the very application should have been disposed of by the learned Court of Munsif. Reliance was placed on the case law of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 1315.

Counsel for the Opposite Party however opposed the same and contended that in the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC, it was pleaded that the valuation of the suit property was much above Rs.5 lacs as shown in the plaint itself taking into consideration the averment made in the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC. It was his contention that the Trial Court rightly rejected the application on the ground that this question could have been decided only after framing the issue in regard to the suit being under valued or not. It was further submitted that the Original suit was filed in the year 2015 and at that time, the suit was also under the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Subsequently, during pendency of the very suit, the jurisdiction of the court of Munsif was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5 lacs. As such the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has to decide the very suit itself, since, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) having unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.

The Court found the submission of the Counsel for Petitioner to be untenable for reason that the plea raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC is that the plaintiffs has undervalued the suit while the valuation of the property in suit is much above Rs.5 lacs at which the suit was valued.

"It is pertinent to mention herein that when the Original (Title) Suit No.628 of 2015 was instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs, at that time, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of Munsif was Rs.50,000/- and in the year 2019 by way of Amendment as the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts (Jharkhand Amendment) Act, 2018, the jurisdiction of Munsif was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5 lacs. This application was filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC in the year 2024," the court observed.

The Court concurred with the Trial Court's reason that whether the suit is undervalued or not, the same could have been decided after framing the issue to that effect and the plaint cannot be rejected on this mere averment made in the application itself.

It mentioned Supreme Court Ruling in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors. vs. Ravinder Nath & Ors., wherein it was held that once the original decree itself has been held to be without jurisdiction and hit by the doctrine of ‘coram non judice’, there would be no question of upholding the same merely on the ground that the objection to the jurisdiction was not taken at the initial stage.

"The benefit of this case law cannot be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, reason being in the case in hand when the original suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs at that time, the learned court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in that suit the written statement was also filed and after passing of the amendment act in regard to exercising the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif, if this application was moved by the petitioners/defendants, the same could have been disposed of rightly by the learned trial court which bears no infirmity or illegality at all," the court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Lagni Mundain vs Ratan Kumari Surana

Appearances:

Petitioner-Advocate Shashank Shekhar

Respondent-Advocate Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Surya Prakash

Click here to read/ download the Judgement:









Jharkhand High CourtCivil JudgeSpecial Civil SuitJurisdictionJurisdiction of Civil Courts

Sheetal Joon