TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 2059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Causes Suit No. 1 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Small Cause Court, Firozabad praying for decree of eviction, rent and damages. By order dated 05.04.2010 passed by District Judge, the suit was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Firozabad and was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2010. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge, Small Cause Court, which at the time of filing of the suit was Rs. 25,000/- was raised from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh w.e.f. 07.12.2005 vide Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015. The Additional District Judge to whom the suit was transferred earlier on the ground that pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit is more than Rs. 25,000/- i. e. Rs. 27,775/-, proceeded to decide the suit vide its judgment and order dated 22.10.2016 and the suit for eviction, rent and compensation was decreed. Aggrieved against the judgment of Addl. District Judge, revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was filed by the tenant (respondents to this appeal). One of the grounds taken in the revision was that after enactment of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the Court of Additional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ict Judge was not only debarred from receiving plaints but was also not competent to decide Small Causes Suit, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. To the view taken by the High Court in Shobhit Nigam's case (supra), there is a contrary view taken by the High Court in Pankaj Hotel Vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ 2017. The principles and objections of pecuniary jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 21 (2) is not attracted in the present case. In Shobhit Nigam's case (supra) High Court had issued a general direction for transferring of Regular Judge Small Causes Court Suits upto valuation of Rs. 1 lakh to the Civil Judge (Senior Division). He submits that special leave petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. From the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings on record, following are the issues, which arise for consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 is only prospective in nature and confined only to the fresh institution of suits in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) w.e.f. 07.12.2015 upto valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and shall not affect the cognizance/hearing of pending suits upto the valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) The High Court may direct by notification in the official Gazette, with respect to any munsif named therein, that his jurisdiction shall exceed to all like suits of such value not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees as may be specified in the notification." 8. Section 25 deals with power to invest Subordinate Judges and Munsifs with Small Cause Court Jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh is as follows: "[25.[1] The High Court may by notification in the official Gazette, confer within such local limits as it thinks fit, upon any Civil Judge or Munsif, the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts up to such value not exceeding five thousand rupees as it thinks fit, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred: Provided that in relation to suits of the nature referred to in the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 15 of the said Act, the reference in this subsection to five thousand rupees shall be construed as reference to twenty-five thousand rupees.] [(2) The High Court may, by notification in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, or for the value of such property, or for damages, when the debt, damage or demand does not exceed in amount or value the sum of five hundred rupees whether on balance of account or otherwise" and Sec. 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundred rupees". Since Section 6 of the Act of 1865 was enacted, a vast quantity of caselaw has grown up around it, and, as the rulings of the Courts have not been uniform, doubts constantly arise on the question whether a suit is or is not a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and, consequently, whether or not, where the suit is of value not exceeding five hundred rupees and the original decree made in it was not final but was open to appeal, an appeal will also lie from the appellate decree in the suit. It appears to the Government of India that the conflicting constructions placed on Section 6, of which some are due to the progress of legislation during the last twenty years (ILR 3 All 66), render a more accurate definition necess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order II, rule 1 (frame of suit); Order X, rule 3 (record of examination of parties); Order XV, except so much of rule 4 as provides for the pronouncement at once of judgement; Order XVIII, rules 5 to 12 (evidence); Orders XLI to XLV (appeals); Order XLVII, rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (review); Order LI." 12. Section 5 provided for establishment of small causes courts by the State Government. Chapter III of the Act deals with "Jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes". Section 15 of the Act provides: 15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes- (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. (3) Subject as aforesaid, the [State Government] may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act was to the following effect:- "(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property;" 15. By Act No. 37 of 1972 amendments were made in Section 15, Section 25 and Second Schedule of the Act. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 provides as follows:- "2. Amendment of Section 15 of Act IX of 1887.-- In Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, in subsection (3), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: "Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease, the reference in this sub-section to two thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to five thousand rupees. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression 'building' has the same meanin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n any District Judge or Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for the trial of all suits (irrespective of their value), by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, or for the recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred. Explanation - For the purposes of this subsection, the expression 'building' has same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule to the said Act. (3) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette delegate to the High Court its powers under this section." 17. As noted above, the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court in so far as State of Uttar Pradesh was concerned was to be vested in both in the Court of Munsifs [now known as Civil Judge (Junior Division)] and Civil Judge [now designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division)]. As noted above, Court of Small Causes were empowered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect: "AN ACT further to amend the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 in their application to Uttar Pradesh. IT IS HEREBY enacted in the Sixty-sixth year of Republic of India as follows: CHAPTER - I PRELIMINARY 1. (1) This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, (2) It shall extend to whole of Uttar Pradesh. CHAPTER - II Amendment of Bengal, Agra and Assam, Civil Courts Act 1887. 2. Bengal, Agra and Assam, Civil Courts Act 1887 hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the principal Act, (a) in subsection (1) for the words "ten thousand rupees" the words "one lakh rupees" shall be substituted; (b) in subsection (2) for the words "twenty five thousand rupees" the words "five lakh rupees" shall be substituted. 3. In section 21 of the principal Act, in subsection (1), in clause (b)- (a) for the words "one lakh rupees" the words "five lakh rupees" shall be substituted; and (b) for the words "five lakh rupees" the words "twenty five lakh rupees" shall be substituted. CHAPTER III....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, an SCC Suit having a valuation between Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lac shall lie before the Small Cause Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The suits having a valuation of more than Rs. 1 Lac would lie before the Additional District Judge/District Judge constituting a Small Causes Court. Shri Satendra Kumar-I, who has filed their counter affidavit in Court today, has not been able to effectively rebut the submissions made by the counsel for the revisionist. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside. The SCC revision is allowed..." 23. Now we proceed to consider the issues which have arisen in the present appeals: ISSUE No. 1 & 2 24. Prior to Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, as per Section 15 (2) of Provincial Small Cause Court, 1887 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh in relation to suits by lessor for eviction of lessee from building after determination of his lease after recovering from him of rent, the Court of Small Causes would have taken cognizance of suits value of which does not exceed Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act upto the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- be transferred to the Small Causes Court presided over by the senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of the district irrespective of the date of their institution. 28. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that judgment of Shobhit Nigam's case does not lay down the correct law. He has relied on another judgment of learned Single Judge decided on 30.08.2017 in S.C.C. Revision No. 171 and 172 of 2017, Pankaj Hotel and others vs. Bal Mukund and others. Learned Single Judge who decided the case of Pankaj Hotel and others took the contrary view and held that U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 is only prospective in nature and was applicable with regard to institutions of fresh suits only. In the suits pending, the Court of District Judge/Additional District Judge continued to have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide Small Causes Suits upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lac even after U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 enforced w.e.f. 07.12.2015. Learned Single Judge referred to an earlier judgment in S.C.C. Revision defective No. 76 of 2017, Sanjay Sharma alias Pintu vs. Anil Dua alias Titu, decided on 13.07.2017 where lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lessee should be treated as small causes cases and should be dealt as a small cause case. By subsequent amendment, the Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge become empowered to decide cases of small cause upto twenty five thousand rupees and cases above twenty-five thousand rupees by lessor against lessee were to be taken cognizance by Court of Additional District Judges. The legislative Scheme contains a clear dichotomy between cases, which could have been taken cognizance by small causes courts presided by Civil Judge and those of small cause cases presided by District Judge or Additional District Judge. The dividing line was only valuation of small cause cases relating to suits by lessor against the lessee. Necessity to empower the District Judge/Additional District Judge to decide small cause cases relating to eviction by lessor against lessee was with the above intent. The Legislature never intended that all cases pertaining to suits by lessor against the lessee of any valuation could be filed in any Small Causes Court. 31. It is true that District Judge or Additional District Judge functioning as Small Causes Courts can take cognizance of all suits irrespective of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o force on the 20th September, 1972, i.e. the date on which the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1972 came into force. 6. Certain notifications which have been issued may also be noticed here. Notification No. 4111 (8)/VIIA580/ 72, dated September 22, 1972, published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette, dated 30972, Part I (Page 5252), issued by the State Government lays down as under : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act IX of 1887) as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) and in continuation of Government Notification No. 1 (8) 69 Nyaya (KaII), dated September 23, 1969, the Governor is pleased to direct, that subject to the exceptions specified in the Second Schedule to the first mentioned Act, and to the Provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suite referred to in the proviso to the said subsection of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees, shall, with effect from the date of publication of this notification, be cognizable by the Courts of Judge. Small Causes, Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut, Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, became triable by the Courts of Judge, Small Causes and by virtue of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act they became exclusively triable by such courts. Of course, the limitation on account of the valuation of the suit remained, This limitation was contained in Section 15 (2) and in Section 15 (3). Ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court stretched up to Rs. 1,000 under Section 15 (2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. But under Section 15 (3) the State Government was empowered to raise the pecuniary limit of such jurisdiction to Rs. 5,000 in respect of suits between the lessors and the lessees for eviction of the latter after the determination of their tenancy from buildings. This result was brought about by the addition of the proviso to Section 15 (3) by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972. As has been stated, the State Government issued a Notification dated Sept. 22, 1972, whereby the Court of Judge, Small Causes situated at Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut, Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra, Lucknow and the Court of Additional Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow were empowered to take cognizance of the suits between the lesso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."......... all suits referred to in Subsection (2) shall be cognizable by court of Small Causes". It is urged that if the legislative intention were that the District Judge or the Additional District Judge on whom the powers of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes have been conferred should take cognizance of the aforesaid variety of suits between the lessor and the lessee then in the concluding portion of Subsection (4) the legislature would not have used the words "Court of Small Causes" but would have used the expression "District Judge or Additional District Judge," counsel contended that there is a distinction between a Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Causes Court and officers who are invested with the powers of a Judge of Court of Small Causes. In my opinion this contention is not valid. In Mt. Sukha v. Raghunath (AIR 1917 All. 62); D. D. Vidyarthi v. Ram Pearey Lal (AIR 1935 All 690); Badal Chandra v. Srikrishna Dey (AIR 1929 Cal 354); Bhagwan Das v. Keshwar Lal (AIR 1923 Pat 49) and Narayan Sitaram v. Bhagu [ (1907) ILR 31 Bom 314)] it has been laid down that the Courts on which Small Cause Court's powers are conferred shall also be deemed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the jurisdiction of Courts, reading the provision of Section 15 alongwith relevant provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the legislative Scheme is clear that small cause cases should be taken cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and cases having valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh by District Judge or Additional District Judge, who have been invested with the power of Small Cause Courts. Unless the above legislative intent and Scheme is followed, there shall be confusion and inconsistency. The legislative provisions have to be interpreted in a manner, which may advance the object and purpose of the Act. When clear dichotomy regarding taking cognizance of small causes suits presided by Civil Judge and by District Judge or Additional District Judge have been provided for, the said dichotomy and separation to take cognizance of cases has to be followed to further the object and purpose of legislation. 36. In Pankaj Hotel case (supra), the Court took the view that since the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge, which have been invested with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e taking of judicial or authoritative notice. 40. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar defines 'Cognizance' in the following manner: "Cognizance.-Judicial notice or knowledge; the judicial recognition or hearing of a cause; jurisdiction, or right to try and determine causes. It is a word of the largest import: embracing all power, authority and jurisdiction. The word "cognizance" is used in the sense of "right to take notice of and determine a cause." Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action, or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind of the suspected commission of an offence....." 41. This Court in (2004) 2 SCC 349, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. M.P. Gupta, had occasion to consider the expression 'Cognizance'. The definition of word 'Cognizance' as given in Black's Law Dictionary was quoted with approval. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, following was stated: "10......According to Black's Law Dictionary the word "cognizance" means "jurisdiction" or "the exercise of jurisdiction" or "power to try and determine causes". In common parlance, it means taking notice of. A court, therefore, is prec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... word 'for institution' in statement of object cannot control the express language of the statutory provisions. 44. A three Judge Bench of this Court in S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522, has held that statement of objects and reasons of the statute can be looked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent only when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language is obscure and ambiguous. In paragraph 176, following was laid down: "176.....But it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of a statute is to be looked into as an extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent only when the meaning of the statute by its ordinary language is obscure or ambiguous. But if the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous then the statute itself declares the intention of the legislature and in such a case it would not be permissible for a court to interpret the statute by examining the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the statute in question." 45. In Subha Ram vs. state of maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 506, this court again laid down that statement of objects and reasons can be looked into for limited pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able by Court of Small Causes, obviously, no other court can take cognizance. Additional District Judge to whom small causes suit in question was transferred since its valuation was more than of Rs. 25,000/- was not competent to take cognizance of the suit after U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, when the suit in question became cognizable by Small Causes Court i.e. Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. To the above extent, the judgment of learned Single Judge in Shobhit Nigam's Case has to be approved and judgment of Single Judge in Pankaj Hotels (Supra) laying down that even after 07.12.2015, the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to decide the suit in question cannot be approved. 48. We further observe that learned Single Judge in Pankaj Hotels case having noticed an earlier view of learned Single Judge in Shobhit Nigam's case, and he being of the opinion that judgment does not lay down the correct law, appropriate course open for Single Judge was to refer the matter for consideration by a larger bench. The judgments of the High Court are relied on and followed by all subordinate courts in the State. It is always better to achieve certainty by a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. In paragraph 7 of the judgment following was laid down: "7......The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act." 51. One more submission which was raised in the said appeal was considered by this Court. One of the submission of the appellant who had instituted the suit in the subordinate court was that as per the revised valuation, the appeal against the decree of subordinate judge did not lay before the District Court but to the High Court, hence, the judgment of the Distric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraphs 7 and 8, following has been laid down: "7.........It may be further noted that the learned Single Judge trying the suit had recorded a finding that the Bombay Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no objection as to the place of suing shall 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 consequent failure of justice. The above provision clearly lays down that such objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by the appellate or revisional court subject to the following conditions: (i) That such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity; (ii) in all cases where issues are settled then at or before such settlement of issues; (iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice. 8. In the present case though the first two conditions are satisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. In 1976, the existing section was numbered as subsection (1) and subsection (2) was added relating to pecuniary jurisdiction by providing that no objection as to competence of a court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection had been taken in the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there had been a consequent failure of justice......... 37. As can be seen, Amendment Act 104 of 1976 introduced subsection (2) relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and put it on a par with the objection to territorial jurisdiction and the competence to raise an objection in that regard even in an appeal from the very decree. This was obviously done in the light of the interpretation placed on Section 21 of the Code as it existed and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act by this Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan5 followed by Hiralal Patni v. Kali Nath6 and Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu4. Therefore, there is no justification in understanding the expression "objection as to place of suing" occurring i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been a consequent failure of justice. 57. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not adverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In judgment of Shobhit Nigam (Supra) also, affect of Section 21 was neither considered nor raised. Section 21 contains a legislative policy which policy has an object and purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on basis of technical objections. 58. There is another judgment of Single Judge of the High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent i.e. SCC Revision No. 305 of 2016, Tejumal vs. Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392. In the above case, learned Single Judge had allowed the revision under Section 25 against the judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge on the ground that the judgment of Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, High Court had noticed judgment of this court in R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. where it was held that in view of Section 21 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, objection as to the place of suing should be taken by the party concerned in the cour....