Pecuniary competence in small causes suits after amendment: jurisdiction shifts to the Civil Judge, and late objections are barred in revision.

The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 was treated as shifting cognizance of small causes suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Judge of Small Causes, including suits already pending within that limit. The Court read "cognizable" as covering institution, hearing, and decision, and held that District Judges and Additional District Judges could no longer validly decide such suits once the enhanced pecuniary limit applied. It further applied Section 21 CPC to hold that a challenge to the trial court's pecuniary competence could not be raised in revision unless taken at the earliest opportunity and accompanied by proof of failure of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 altered the forum for pending small causes suits so that suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh had to be tried only by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) even when already pending before the District Judge or Additional District Judge. (ii) Whether, after the amendment, the District Judge or Additional District Judge could still decide such suits notwithstanding the valuation limit. (iii) Whether the tenant could challenge the competence of the Additional District Judge in revision despite not raising any objection before the trial court.

Issue (i): Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 altered the forum for pending small causes suits so that suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh had to be tried only by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) even when already pending before the District Judge or Additional District Judge.

Analysis: The amended statutory scheme raised the pecuniary limit for suits cognizable by the small causes court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Rs. 1 lakh. The expression used in the governing provision is that such suits shall be "cognizable" by the Court of Small Causes, and that expression was treated as covering institution, hearing, and decision. The statutory arrangement created a clear separation between suits triable by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Small Causes Court and those assigned to the District Judge or Additional District Judge. The Court held that the amendment displaced the earlier forum for suits within the enhanced limit.

Conclusion: The amendment applied to the forum for such suits, and suits up to Rs. 1 lakh became cognizable by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Judge of Small Causes.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the amendment, the District Judge or Additional District Judge could still decide such suits notwithstanding the valuation limit.

Analysis: Although District Judges and Additional District Judges had been empowered to try certain small causes matters "irrespective of their value", that power was read consistently with the statutory division of cognizance between the two forums. Once the valuation ceiling for the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh, the District Judge or Additional District Judge was no longer competent to take cognizance of suits within that limit. The Court rejected the contrary view that the broader pecuniary power of the District Judge or Additional District Judge survived unchanged for pending matters of lower valuation.

Conclusion: The District Judge or Additional District Judge could not validly continue to decide small causes suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh after the amendment.

Issue (iii): Whether the tenant could challenge the competence of the Additional District Judge in revision despite not raising any objection before the trial court.

Analysis: Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars appellate or revisional interference on objections to pecuniary competence unless the objection was taken at the earliest opportunity and there was a consequent failure of justice. No such objection had been raised before the Additional District Judge, and no failure of justice was shown. The Court applied the legislative policy against upsetting decisions on merely technical jurisdictional objections after a case has been tried on merits.

Conclusion: The tenant was precluded from challenging the competence of the Additional District Judge in revision.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order allowing the revision was unsustainable, and the decree passed by the Additional District Judge was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute assigns cognizance of a class of suits to a particular small causes forum, objections to the pecuniary competence of the trial court cannot be entertained in revision unless they were raised at the earliest opportunity and prejudice by failure of justice is shown.

---