Court No. - 26
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4113
of 2018
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Savita (Since Deceased) And 3 Others
Respondent :- Civil Judge (Sd) Ftc, Budaun And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Kumar Singh,P.H. Vashishtha
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(ORAL) This petition has been filed praying for setting aside the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Budaun on an application Paper No. 169 C filed in SCC Suit No. 5 of 2005 (Smt. Vidyawati and others vs Ramesh Chandra Savita and others) as well as the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned District Judge in SCC Revision No. 3 of 2018 (Ramesh Chandra Savita and others vs Smt. Vidhyawati and others), by which the Revision filed by the petitioners-tenants has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the SCC Suit was valued at Rs. 7700/- and by way of amendment in U.P. Civil Law Amendment Act No. 14 of 2015, the pecuniary jurisdiction lay with Civil Judge (Junior Division), but the matter was being proceeded with by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Therefore an application Paper No. 169 C was moved by the petitioners-tenants for deciding the issue of jurisdiction first. The suit was pending at the stage of final hearing, by the time, the amendment was brought in existence w.e.f. 07.12.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon several authorities of this Court, mention of which have been made in paragraph 14 and also in the orders impugned. They are as follows:
(1) M/s Quality Restaurant vs Sunil Khetrapal and others, 2016 (3) ARC 403;
(2) Tejumal vs Mohd. Sarfaraj, 2016 (3) ARC 470'
(3) Hori Lal vs Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, 2017 (34) LCD 64 Alld;
(4) Shobhit Nigam vs Smt. Batulan and others, 2017 (120 ) ALR 124 Alld;
(5) Sanjay Sharma @ Pintu vs Anil Dua @ Titoo, 2017 (2) ARC 702;
(6) M/s Pankaj Hotel and another vs Bal Mukund and others, 2017 (3) ARC 112.
The Trial Court however placed reliance upon a judgement of this Court in the case of M/s Pankaj Hotel and another vs Bal Mukund and others, 2017 (3) ARC 112 and held that even if valuation of the suit was less that would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court concerned, where the matter was pending and was at the stage of final hearing. The Trial Court has rejected the application also on the ground that it was moved with inordinate delay only to linger on the proceedings of the suit.
Challenging the order dated 04.05.2018, the petitioners filed a SCC Revision No. 3 of 2018, which has also been rejected by the order impugned dated 18.05.2018.
It has been argued by Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case, judgment in M/s Pankaj Hotel (supra) shall not apply, but the judgment in Shobhit Nigam (supra) would apply, which followed long line of cases where it has been held that no matter where the suit is instituted after the amendment was notified on 07.12.2015, it shall be transferred to the Court of concerned jurisdiction and shall be tried by it. On the other hand, M/s Pankaj Hotel is distinguishable on facts as in that particular case, the suit was initially tried by the learned Additional District Judge as Judge Small Causes Court and suit was dismissed. In revision, the matter was remanded by this Court to the Additional District Judge for consideration afresh. Since, there was a direction of this Court to the Additional District Judge to decide the matter, therefore, the amendment notified on 07.12.2015 was held by this Court to be inapplicable in the facts of that particular case.
However, Mr Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out paragraphs 48 and 49 of the M/s Pankaj Hotel (supra), wherein this Court has held after considering all earlier authorities of this Court and of the Supreme Court that section 15 of Civil Procedure Code enacts a rule of procedure with an object to avoid overcrowding in the Court of higher grade. It does not oust the jurisdiction of Court of higher grade. The competency of the Court of higher grade to try a suit, below the valuation of his pecuniary jurisdiction has not been affected either by Section 15 C.P.C. or by any other provision. The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that when a case has been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment is rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the Legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an Appellate Court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits of the trial.
It has not been disputed that merely the trial of the suit by a court of higher jurisdiction does not prejudice the case of the litigants or result in a failure of justice, therefore, this Court does not feel it appropriate to interfere in the orders impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The Trial Court shall consider and decide the SCC Suit, as expeditiously as possible, as has already been directed by this Court in the order dated 18.04.2018 in Matters under Article 227 No. 2518 of 2018 (Ramesh Chandra Savita (deceased) and 3 others vs Smt. Vidhyawati and 2 others).
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Sazia