TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as valued above Rs. 25,000/-, at Rs. 28,965/-, for the purpose of jurisdiction. The defendant filed written statement. Apart from contesting the proceeding on merits, raised an objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes by claiming that the pecuniary jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes was up to Rs. 25,000/- only. It appears that the objection in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction was not considered by the trial court. The suit proceeded, parties led evidence and, thereafter, the suit was decreed on merits by judgment and decree dated 27.02.2010. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendant-petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 13 of 2010. 5. The revisional court by judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 set aside the order dated 27.02.2010 on the ground that the trial court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction for deciding the suit inasmuch as its pecuniary jurisdiction was limited up to Rs. 25,000/-. The revisional court, after setting aside the order passed by the trial court, remanded the matter back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. 6. After the matter was remanded back t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid order, revision was preferred by the defendant-petitioner which has been summarily dismissed by the District Judge, Agra vide impugned order dated 17.01.2017. I have heard Sri Madhav Jain for the petitioner; Sri Rishi Chaddha for the plaintiff-respondent; and have perused the record. SUBMISSIONS 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the decree of the Court of Judge Small Causes was set aside by the revisional court on ground of lack of jurisdiction, the trial court had no option but to return the plaint to a court of competent jurisdiction and therefore the amending Act enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Judge Small Causes would not apply to the pending proceeding and, under the circumstances, the Court had no option but to return the plaint for presentation in a Court having jurisdiction. It has been urged by him that when a plaint is returned under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for presentation in a competent court having jurisdiction, the trial has to commence de novo and, therefore valuable right of the petitioner has been affected by the impugned order. It has been submitted that even assuming that the Court of Judge Small C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apex court in ONGC v. M/s. Modern Construction and Co. : (2014) 1 SCC 648 has been relied upon to contend that when a plaint is returned for presentation to a competent court having jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo even though it stood concluded before the court having no competence to try the same. 18. Per Contra, Sri Rishi Chaddha, who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, has submitted that on account of the amendment carried out by Act No. 104 of 1976, with effect from 01.02.1977, vital changes have been brought in the Code of Civil Procedure including in sections 21 and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, section 21-A has been inserted. Under the amended section 21 of the Code, no objection as to the competence of a court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction is to be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases, where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. By insertion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed their evidence and, in fact, by leading his evidence, the defendant had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, therefore, there was no consequential failure of justice warranting a de novo trial. Accordingly, he prayed, the petition be dismissed. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 21. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 22. Section 21 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976, provides that objection to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction has to be taken at the first instance and no such objection is to be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. Further by insertion of section 21-A in the Code and by amendment in sub-section (2) of section 24 and by insertion of sub-section (5) in section 24 of the Code, the legislative intent is clear that on ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proceeding the conditions laid out in Section 21 of the Code are to be satisfied. The party aggrieved will have to demonstrate that on account of the proceeding in a court having no pecuniary jurisdiction there had been a consequent failure of justice. 26. In the instant case, the Court of Judge Small Causes had proceeded with the suit and had recorded the evidence of both parties and, thereafter, had decided the matter. Although the decree passed by the Court of Judge Small Causes was set aside on ground of lack of jurisdiction but the revisional court while setting aside the decree did not record any satisfaction that there had been a consequent failure of justice or that the defendant had refused to participate in the proceeding on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. 27. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court had no option but to return the plaint even when it came to have gained pecuniary jurisdiction by subsequent notification enhancing its pecuniary limit does not appeal to the court, particularly, in view of the legal position that the proceeding, under the amended Code, in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is no....