Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 684 (KAR)

ASHOK P SHAH v. PULLICAR MILLS LTD

2015-06-29

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2015
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The matter is listed for final hearing. 2. The order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Chitradurga, in O.S.16/14 is called in question. The application was filed under Section 151, C.P.C. by the defendant therein. The learned judge, after analyzing the material on record, has passed the following order: ORDER IA No.7 filed by the learned counsel for the defendant Under Section 151 of CPC is allowed. It is ordered that this Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per Order XXXVII of CPC. Consequently, acting U/o VII Rule 10 CPC, it is ordered that plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff, to present the same before the proper court, in accordance with law, within 20 days from the date of this order. 3. The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.15/14. He had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5.85 crores against the defendant/respondent. After appearance of the defendant, objection was taken about the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit filed under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. mainly on the ground that the High Court has not specified the courts before which summary suits should be filed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. In this view of the matter, the learned judge has accepted the contention of the defendant therein and ordered for return of the plaint to be presented before the proper court in terms of Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C. 4. Learned counsel, Sri Paras Jain has challenged the impugned order relying upon the decision in the case reported in the case of GANPAT GIRI v. II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BALIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1986 SC 589 and another decision in the case of MADHAVAN NAIR v. RAMANKUTTY AND ANOTHER reported in [2000] 2 SCC 356. It is his case that by virtue of the amendment carried out to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Amendment Act No.104/76 which came into effect from 1.2.1977, nonspecifying of the courts competent to entertain summary suits, the Central amendment holds good. 5. Order XXXVII, C.P.C. was amended vide amendment act No.104/76. Pursuant to it, the provision of Order XXXVII has been made applicable to High Courts, City Civil Court, Court of Small Causes and other Courts. 6. 5. Order XXXVII, C.P.C. was amended vide amendment act No.104/76. Pursuant to it, the provision of Order XXXVII has been made applicable to High Courts, City Civil Court, Court of Small Causes and other Courts. 6. In view of the (Deleted vide Court Order dated 09.07.2015) Section 97 of the amended Act, the earlier notification of this court virtually stands repealed. In these circumstances, Order XXXVII Rule (Corrected vide Court Order dated 09.07.2015) 1, C.P.C. is applicable to the court of Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) which has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try a suit where the value is more than Rs.5,00,000/. It need not be reiterated that the civil judge (Senior Divn.) has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction above Rs.5,00,000/. In the decision rendered in the case of GANPAT GIIRI (supra), the Hon’ble apex court has held thus: The effect of Section 97(1) of Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act (104 of 1976) is that all local amendments made to any of the provisions of the Code either by a State Legislature or by a High Court which were inconsistent with the Code as amended by the Amending Act stood repealed irrespective of the fact whether the corresponding provision in the Code has been amended or modified by the Amending Act and that was subject only to what was found in sub-section (2) of Section 97. In another decision in the case of MADHAVAN NAIR (supra), Section 97 as amended under Amendment Act No.104/76 has been referred to and it is ultimately held that ‘any amendment which is made or provision inserted in the principal Act by the State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of the amending Act except insofar as such amendment of the provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act…… stand repealed.’ In the light of the explanation on the scope of Section 97, C.P.C. by Amendment Act No.104/76, the impugned order does not hold good and accordingly it has to be set aside. 7. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 6.8.2014 passed on I.A.7 in O.S.16/14 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Chitradurga, is set aside. It is made clear that the said court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 7. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 6.8.2014 passed on I.A.7 in O.S.16/14 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Chitradurga, is set aside. It is made clear that the said court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Since the amount involved is more than rupee six crores, the learned judge to try to dispose of the suit as early as possible.