Pecuniary jurisdiction objection not fatal: pending suit could continue after enhancement of Small Causes Court limits.

Under the amended Code of Civil Procedure, lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not by itself render a pending proceeding a nullity, and an objection on that ground succeeds only if failure of justice is shown. A suit already pending when the pecuniary limit of the Court of Small Causes was enhanced was therefore not required to be returned for fresh presentation, particularly where no direction to return the plaint had been issued. The refusal to return the plaint was held valid, and the suit could continue before the Court of Small Causes without de novo institution.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes during pendency of the suit, the plaint was still liable to be returned for presentation before another court and whether the impugned order refusing return of plaint was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The amended scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure draws a distinction between inherent lack of jurisdiction and objections to pecuniary jurisdiction. An objection as to pecuniary competence must be taken at the earliest opportunity and can succeed only if consequent failure of justice is shown. A proceeding conducted by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is not a nullity under the amended provisions. The legislative intent reflected in Sections 21 and 24 is that such a proceeding may be transferred and, where appropriate, continued from the stage at which it stood transferred. Since the suit had already remained pending when the jurisdictional limit was enhanced and no direction had been issued to return the plaint, the pending proceeding stood regularised. The authorities relied upon for the proposition that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity were distinguished as decisions rendered under the unamended law or in a different factual setting.

Conclusion: The refusal to return the plaint was valid, and the suit could proceed before the Court of Small Causes without a de novo presentation.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the amended Code, lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not by itself render a pending proceeding a nullity, and in the absence of demonstrated failure of justice the proceeding may continue or be transferred in accordance with Section 24.

---