Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 593 (KAR)

Y. B. Ramesh v. Varalakshmi

2010-04-23

B.MANOHAR

body2010
Judgment :- Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.82 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magadi filed by the first respondent seeing for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to allot 1/7th share in favour of the plaintiff and also to restrain the 9th defendant who is the petitioner herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 property. 2. Pursuant to the notice issued in O.S.No.82 of 2007, the petitioner filed detailed statement of objections denying the claim made by the plaintiff and also made an application in I.A.No.1 under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In support of his contention, the petitioner has contended that the market value of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.15,80,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs and eighty thousand). Therefore, 1/7th share of the schedule property exceed Rs.2,25,000/-. Hence, the learned Civil Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed objections to the said application contending that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is maintainable. Further, the contention of the defendant that as on the date of filing of the suit, the market value of the suit schedule properties is more than Rs.15,80,000/- is not correct and the learned Civil Judge can maintain the suit. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 17-12-2008 dismissed the said application holding that the said Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the amendment to Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 which came into effect from 20-8-2007 wherein the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2008 made on I.A. No.1, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Sri. L.M. Ramaiah Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as on the date of filing of the suit i.e., on 6-3-2007, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, but in view of subsequent amendment dated 28-8-2007, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has got pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Sri. L.M. Ramaiah Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as on the date of filing of the suit i.e., on 6-3-2007, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, but in view of subsequent amendment dated 28-8-2007, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has got pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is contrary to law and facts and sought for setting aside the order dated 17-12-2008. 5. Per contra, Sri T.N. Vishwanath, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff contended that in view of the amendment to Karnataka Civil Courts Act, dated 20-8-2007, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction. He further contended that the issue regarding law to be applied for determining the jurisdiction of the Court whether law existing on the date of institution of the suit or on the date on which the suit comes up for hearing is to be applied as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment in the case of Sudhir G. Angur and Others v. M. Sanjeev and Others (2006 (1) Kar.L.J. 80 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 351 : (2006) 1 SCC 141 : 2005 AIR SCW 5916. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magadi. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and other necessary documents. 7. The undisputed facts that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking for 1/7th share in the suit schedule property and the 9th defendant contended that the market value of the property is more than Rs.15,80,000/- and 1/7th share in the schedule property exceeds Rs.2,25,000/-, hence, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was filed on 6-3-2007. In the meanwhile, the Karnataka Civil Courts Act got amended on 20-8-2007 wherein the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. In view of that, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 8. The suit was filed on 6-3-2007. In the meanwhile, the Karnataka Civil Courts Act got amended on 20-8-2007 wherein the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. In view of that, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 8. The main argument addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date of filing of the suit, the Court has no jurisdiction and hence, the plaint has to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC. The issue regarding law to be applied in determining the jurisdiction of the Court, i.e., the law as existing on the date of institution of the suit or on the date on which, the suit came up for hearing has to be applied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment cited supra held as under: “In our view Mr. G.L. Sanghi is also right in submitting that it is the law on the date of trial of the suit which is to be applied. In support of this submission, Mr. Sanghi relied upon the judgment in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji v Onkarmal Ishar Dass, AIR 1952 Bom. 365 , wherein it has been held that no party has a vested right to a particular proceeding or to a particular forum. It has been held that it is well-settled that all procedural laws are retrospective unless the Legislature expressly states to the contrary. It has been held that the procedural laws in force must be applied at the date when the suit or proceeding comes on for trial or disposal. It has been held that a Court is bound to take notice of the change in the law and is bound to administer the law as it was when the suit came up for hearing. It has been held that if a Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, when it comes on for disposal, it then cannot refuse to assume jurisdiction by reason of the fact that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it at the date when it was instituted. We are in complete agreement with these observations. As stated above, the Mysore Act now stands repelled. It could not be denied that now the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit”. 9. We are in complete agreement with these observations. As stated above, the Mysore Act now stands repelled. It could not be denied that now the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit”. 9. In view of the pronouncement of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Further, even if it is held that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, at the most, the Court can return the plaint to the plaintiff to present before the appropriate Court. In view of the amendment to the Civil Courts Act, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magadi is the Competent Court to try the suit and hence, I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.