https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463262 A remanded Small Cause Court matter continued before the court specifically directed by the High Court, and the amended pecuniary limit did not automatically divest that court of jurisdiction. A belated objection to pecuniary jurisdiction also failed because such a defect does not vitiate the decree absent failure of justice, and the jurisdiction conferred on District Judges and Additional District Judges remained effective. On the merits, concurrent findings that the tenant had made substantial structural alterations without the landlord's consent were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be perverse, so they were not interfered with in revision. The revisions were therefore found to lack merit. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:55:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463262 A remanded Small Cause Court matter continued before the court specifically directed by the High Court, and the amended pecuniary limit did not automatically divest that court of jurisdiction. A belated objection to pecuniary jurisdiction also failed because such a defect does not vitiate the decree absent failure of justice, and the jurisdiction conferred on District Judges and Additional District Judges remained effective. On the merits, concurrent findings that the tenant had made substantial structural alterations without the landlord's consent were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be perverse, so they were not interfered with in revision. The revisions were therefore found to lack merit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463262