TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 21 CPC bars belated jurisdiction challenge where tenant failed to object; earlier judgment restored</h1> <h3>OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS. Versus VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.</h3> OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS. Versus VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. - 2018 INSC 970, 2018 AIR 5486, 2019 (14) SCC 526, (2018) 14 SCALE ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 is prospective in nature, affecting only fresh institution of suits with valuation up to Rs. 1 lakh in Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judges, and does not affect pending suits of similar valuation before Courts of Additional District Judges or District Judges. 2. Whether the Court of Additional District Judge, vested with Small Causes Court jurisdiction for suits exceeding Rs. 25,000 prior to the 2015 amendment, ceases to have jurisdiction over Small Causes Suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh after the amendment, or can continue to exercise such jurisdiction. 3. Whether failure of the tenant/respondent to raise objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge at the earliest opportunity precludes them from challenging the jurisdiction at the revision stage under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, in light of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Jurisdiction of Additional District Judge after the 2015 Amendment Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: - The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (PSCCA) and the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (BAACCA) govern the constitution and jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts in Uttar Pradesh. - Section 15 of PSCCA defines the cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes, with pecuniary limits initially set at Rs. 5,000, and a proviso increasing it to Rs. 25,000 for suits by lessors against lessees for eviction and rent recovery. - Section 25 of BAACCA empowers the High Court to confer Small Causes Court jurisdiction on District Judges and Additional District Judges for eviction suits 'irrespective of their value.' - The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 increased the pecuniary jurisdiction limits of Small Causes Courts from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 1 lakh for suits by lessors against lessees. - Prior to the 2015 amendment, suits valued above Rs. 25,000 were cognizable by Additional District Judges with Small Causes Court jurisdiction. - The High Court judgment in Shobhit Nigam v. Smt. Batulan held that post-amendment, suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh must be tried by Small Causes Courts presided over by Civil Judges (Senior Division), and Additional District Judges cannot assume jurisdiction over such suits. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: - The term 'cognizable by Court of Small Causes' in Section 15(2) PSCCA is interpreted to mean the court has jurisdiction not only to receive plaints but also to hear and decide suits. - The legislative scheme creates a clear dichotomy: Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judges have pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 1 lakh (post-2015 amendment), while Additional District Judges retain jurisdiction only over suits exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. - The phrase 'irrespective of their value' in Section 25 BAACCA (as amended earlier) allowed Additional District Judges to try eviction suits of any value before the 2015 amendment, but this was modified by the 2015 amendment increasing the pecuniary limit for Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judges. - The Court rejected the view that Additional District Judges continue jurisdiction over suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh after the amendment, emphasizing that the legislative intent was to transfer such suits to Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judges for expeditious disposal. - The Court referred to authoritative precedents affirming that 'cognizance' includes institution, hearing, and decision, and no parallel jurisdiction exists for the same class of suits between different courts. Key Evidence and Findings: - The suit in question was initially filed in the Small Causes Court presided by Civil Judge (Senior Division) with valuation under Rs. 25,000, subsequently enhanced to Rs. 27,775 and transferred to Additional District Judge as per pre-amendment jurisdictional limits. - The suit was pending before the Additional District Judge on 07.12.2015 when the amendment came into effect raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts to Rs. 1 lakh. - Neither party raised objection to jurisdiction before the Additional District Judge, who proceeded to decide the suit. Application of Law to Facts: - Post-amendment, the suit's valuation fell within the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judges. - The Additional District Judge was, therefore, not competent to take cognizance or decide the suit after 07.12.2015. - The suit should have been transferred back to the Small Causes Court presided by Civil Judge (Senior Division) for adjudication. Treatment of Competing Arguments: - The appellant argued the amendment was prospective and did not affect pending suits, and that the Additional District Judge retained jurisdiction over pending suits. - The respondent relied on the plain language of the amended statute and the meaning of 'cognizable' to argue that the Additional District Judge lost jurisdiction post-amendment. - The Court rejected the appellant's argument, holding that the statutory language and legislative intent do not support continuation of jurisdiction by Additional District Judges over suits within the enhanced pecuniary limit of Small Causes Courts. Conclusions: - The 2015 amendment to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is not merely prospective; it affects pending suits by transferring jurisdiction over Small Causes Suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh to Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judges. - Additional District Judges cease to have jurisdiction over such suits post-amendment. - The High Court's reliance on the Shobhit Nigam precedent is affirmed in this respect. Issue 3: Effect of Failure to Raise Jurisdictional Objection under Section 21 CPC Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: - Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) mandates that objections to place of suing or pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court, failing which they are barred unless there is a failure of justice. - The principle underlying Section 21 is to prevent technical objections to jurisdiction from upsetting merits-based decisions and to avoid retrials on such grounds. - Precedents affirm that objections to pecuniary jurisdiction not raised at the earliest stage cannot be entertained in appellate or revisional proceedings unless failure of justice is shown. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: - The tenant/respondent did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge during the trial or before settlement of issues. - The Court held that Section 21(2) CPC bars raising pecuniary jurisdiction objections at the revision stage unless the conditions of earliest opportunity and failure of justice are met. - No failure of justice was demonstrated by the respondent. - The Court distinguished between lack of inherent jurisdiction (which can be challenged at any stage) and pecuniary jurisdiction objections under Section 21 CPC, which are procedural and subject to waiver. - The High Court erred in allowing the revision solely on jurisdictional grounds without considering Section 21 CPC. Key Evidence and Findings: - The Additional District Judge proceeded to decide the suit without any jurisdictional objection from the parties. - The tenant challenged jurisdiction only in revision before the High Court, which allowed the revision without addressing Section 21 CPC. Application of Law to Facts: - The tenant's failure to raise jurisdictional objection in the trial court precludes them from challenging jurisdiction later under Section 21 CPC. - The judgment of the Additional District Judge is not a nullity and cannot be set aside on jurisdictional grounds at the revision stage absent failure of justice. Treatment of Competing Arguments: - The appellant argued that Section 21 CPC bars the tenant's jurisdictional challenge. - The respondent relied on precedents holding jurisdictional defects can be challenged at any stage. - The Court rejected the respondent's reliance on the latter view, affirming the binding effect of Section 21 CPC and related precedents. Conclusions: - Section 21 CPC bars raising pecuniary jurisdiction objections at revision if not raised at earliest opportunity and no failure of justice is shown. - The tenant is estopped from challenging jurisdiction of Additional District Judge at revision stage. - The High Court erred in setting aside the Additional District Judge's judgment on jurisdictional grounds without applying Section 21 CPC. 3. ADDITIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND OBSERVATIONS - The legislative intent behind the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and its amendments is to provide a speedy and simplified procedure for small cause suits, with clear jurisdictional demarcations based on pecuniary limits. - The expression 'cognizable by a Court of Small Causes' is comprehensive, including the power to institute, hear, and decide suits, thereby precluding parallel jurisdiction by other courts over the same category of suits. - The statutory scheme creates a hierarchy and separation of jurisdiction between Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judges and those presided by District Judges or Additional District Judges, based on pecuniary valuation. - The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative scheme to avoid confusion and ensure uniform application of law. - The Court disapproved conflicting judicial views that would undermine the clear statutory scheme and legislative intent. - The Court highlighted that the object and reasons of legislation, while useful as an aid, cannot override the plain and unambiguous language of the statute. - The Court recognized the policy behind Section 21 CPC to prevent technical jurisdictional objections from derailing substantive justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
