Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1096 (RAJ)

Sumitra Devi v. Pushkar Narayan and Anr

2014-05-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Sumitra Devi against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali in Civil Appeal Decree No. 21/2008 whereby the learned Appellate Court reversed the order dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jaitaran in Civil Original Case No. 28/1993. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jaitaran. The suit property was valued at Rs. 40,000/- and accordingly the Court fees was paid on-the said valuation. It appears that the defendant (appellant herein) sold the suit property during the pendency of the suit and accordingly, the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed an application for amendment in the plaint and sought the relief of cancellation of the sale deed executed on 5.6.2006. Upon the amendment being sought, the petitioner defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section .151 C.P.C. raising an objection that as the sale deed which was challenged by way of the amendment was for an amount of Rs. 1 lac, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) seized to have the monetary jurisdiction to try the suit. The application came to be decided by the learned Trial Court by judgment dated 12.11.2008 and the objection regarding lack of the Court's jurisdiction to try the suit was sustained and the suit was directed to be returned back to the plaintiff for being presented before the Appropriate Court. The respondent No. 1 plaintiff filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The Appellate Court by judgment dated 23.4.2012 accepted the appeal holding chat the valuation of suit would not be altered by the subsequent events i.e. the subsequent sale by the defendant and despite the amendment permitted to challenge the sale deed. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside. 3. The appellant defendant has approached the Court by way of the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. 4. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside. 3. The appellant defendant has approached the Court by way of the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. 4. Shri K.C. Samdariya leaned Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kundan Mal v. Katndar, Thikana Siryari reported in 1959 RLW 175 and submits that when an amendment takes the suit out of the Court's jurisdiction, the only option left with the Court is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court having jurisdiction post amendment. He also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Khandelwal v. Mangal Prasad reported in AIR 2006 MP 227 wherein also the same proposition was laid down. Learned Counsel submits that admittedly, subsequent to the amendment, the valuation of the suit property was enhanced to Rs. 1 lac, thus, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) ceased to have jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus he submits that the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2012 passed by the Appellate Court be set aside and the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) be restored. 5. Per contra, Shri R.S. Choudhary learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He submits that jurisdiction has to be assessed in reference to the original pleadings and not in context of the subsequent amendment. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned orders. 7. It is undisputed that by way of the amendment in the suit, which was permitted to be carried out upon the plaintiffs application, the execution of the sale deed by the petitioner defendant in favour of Sushila Devi was challenged. The deed was executed for a sum of Rs. 1 lac. In the amended suit, the valuation of the suit property was mentioned as Rs. 1 lac. Thus, in view of the valuation of the property post amendment, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) would not have any jurisdiction to grant the relief of cancellation of the said sale deed because the relief sought for was beyond its monetary jurisdiction. 1 lac. Thus, in view of the valuation of the property post amendment, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) would not have any jurisdiction to grant the relief of cancellation of the said sale deed because the relief sought for was beyond its monetary jurisdiction. The issue at hand is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kundan Mai. The taken by the Appellate Court is patently illegal. Thus, the Appellate Court was totally unjustified in reversing the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jaitaran whereby the suit was directed to be returned back to the plaintiff for being presented before the Appropriate Court.Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree dated 23.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali in Civil Appeal Decree No. 21/2008 is quashed. Consequently the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Jaitaran in Civil Original Case No. 28/1993 is restored.Consequently the stay petition is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******