Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1965 DIGILAW 261 (ALL)

Shyam Lal v. Sangam Lal

1965-08-03

D.S.MATHUR

body1965
ORDER D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision u/s 115 CPC by Shyam Lal, Plaintiff, against the order dated 5. 10. 63 of the Additional Munsif of Allahabad rejecting his application u/s 153 CPC read with Order VII Rule 10 and Order IX Rule 9 CPC and thereby refusing to restore the suit which had earlier been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The material facts of the case are that the Plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 1944-y. but on an objection raised by the Defendants the Munsif held that the correct valuation was Rs. 6535/-. The Plaintiff was directed to correct the valuation within one week and on his failure to do so the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC under order dated 6.3.1963. Thereafter, on 30.6.l966 the Plaintiff moved the present application for recalling the order dated 6.3.63 and restoring the suit to its original number. It was also prayed that the plaint be then returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to a proper court. 3. None of the sections or orders mentioned in the application were applicable though the court could recall the earlier order in exercise of the in herent jurisdiction u/s 151 CPC provided that the exercise of the in herent jurisdiction was necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. To put it in brief, if the order of rejection passed on 6.3.1963 is without jurisdiction, the Additional Munsif could exercise the inherent jurisdiction to set right the error committed by him. 4. There is no longer any dispute in that the present suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. The point for consideration however, is whether in a suit beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction the Munsif can direct the Plaintiff to amend the valuation and on his failure to comply with the order to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure; or it is necessary for the Munsif to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to a proper court. 5. Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been worded generally but on general principles it must be held that the order of rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be passed only in a suit within the jurisdiction of the court. 5. Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been worded generally but on general principles it must be held that the order of rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be passed only in a suit within the jurisdiction of the court. The CPC lays down not only the procedure but also the powers exercisable by the courts of law. Naturally, such powers can be exercised in cases within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Code does not contemplate of the passing of orders in suits or proceedings not within the jurisdiction of the court. of course, for so long as no finding is recorded that the suit is not within the jurisdiction of the court, many orders can be passed though on holding that the suit or proceeding is not within the jurisdiction of the court, the orders passed earlier shall cease to be effective. 6. When orders passed in a suit or proceeding not within the jurisdiction of the court become ineffective on a finding being recorded that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain that suit or proceeding, it can be said with equal force that on recording such a finding the court cannot pass any order other than the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to a proper court. 7. At the risk of repetition it may here be observed that the finding of the Munsif as to the valuation of the suit shall not be binding on the parties after the representation of the plaint. The new court can record a finding of its own not only on valuation but also on allied questions. When the Civil Judge can reconsider the valuation of the suit after the representation of the plaint, no useful purpose shall be served by amending the plaint in accordance with the orders of the Munsif. In this view of the matter also the plaint should be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and not rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for not amending the valuation of the suit. 8. A similar view was expressed in Ganesh Tavanappa Burde Vs. Tatya Bharmappa Mirji, AIR 1927 Bom 257 and Satti Ramanna v. (Padala) Araireddi and Ors. (2) ( AIR 193l Mad. 67). 8. A similar view was expressed in Ganesh Tavanappa Burde Vs. Tatya Bharmappa Mirji, AIR 1927 Bom 257 and Satti Ramanna v. (Padala) Araireddi and Ors. (2) ( AIR 193l Mad. 67). It has been held in these cases that where on correct valuation of plaint the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the court it must return the plaint for presentation to proper court and not ask the Plaintiff to amend the valuation with a view to directing him to pay additional court fee and then to return the plaint Under Order VII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The learned Counsel for Defendants opposite parties has, however, placed reliance upon certain observations made in Abdul Ghani v. Vishunath (3) (1957 AWR 392) but that was a case where the suit continued to be within the jurisdiction of the Munsif. Therein the correct valuation as found by the Munsif was only Rs. 1694/-. Such a suit continued to be within the jurisdiction of the Munsif and he naturally could have passed on order of rejection under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. 10. To sum up, on correct valuation of the plaint the Additional Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently he could not reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the only order that he could pass was under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for the return of the plaint for presentation to a proper court. On the other hand, the Munsif rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the Plaintiff failed to correct the valuation within the time allowed. The order of rejection was thus without jurisdiction & should have been set aside by the Munsif on the detect being brought to his notice. This could be done u/s 151 Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif has thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and this Court can pass a suitable order. 11. The revision is hereby allowed and the order under revision dated 5.10.l963 and also the order dated 6.3.1963 of the Murnif rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are set aside. It is further ordered that the paint shall be returned to the Plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to a proper court. Costs on parties.