Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 351 (GAU)

S. Lianbuangi v. Lalmuankimi

2018-02-23

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Z.D. Lalnunsanga for the respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are represented by Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, the learned Govt. Advocate. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei in Title Suit No. 12/2010 decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The present appellant was the defendant No. 5 before the learned Trial Court and being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2014, she has preferred the instant Regular First Appeal under the provisions of Section 17 (2) (b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 (Civil Courts Act). 3. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 at the outset, submits that in view of Section of 17 (2) (a) of the Civil Courts Act, the appeal should have been preferred by the appellant before the learned District Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei. 4. Section 17 (2) (a) of the Civil Courts Act may be reproduced below for ready perusal:- "(2) Appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a Court of Senior Civil Judge in original suits and proceedings of civil nature, shall when such appeals are allowed by law, lie- (a) to the Court of the District Judge of that district when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit or proceedings is less than 5 lakhs of rupees or such other sum as the High Court may, from time to time, specify." 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel submits that the value of the suit was declared to be 2 lakhs before the learned Trial Court and therefore, an appeal lies before the learned District Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the Civil Courts Act. He therefore submits that on this ground, an appeal may not be entertained by this Court and the appellant be directed to file an appeal before the learned District Judge concerned. 6. Mr. He therefore submits that on this ground, an appeal may not be entertained by this Court and the appellant be directed to file an appeal before the learned District Judge concerned. 6. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel for the appellant on the other hand submits that the title suit should have been filed before the Civil Judge having jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the suit was valued at Rs. 2 lakhs only. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 15 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, wherein it is provided that the Court of Civil Judge shall have pecuniary jurisdiction when the value of the subject matter does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. 7. Section 15 of the Civil Courts Act may be reproduced below for ready perusal:- "15. Jurisdiction of a Court of Civil Judge- The jurisdiction of a Court of Civil Judge shall extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not otherwise excluded from the jurisdiction of a court of Civil Judge by any law, the value of the subject matter of which does not exceed 2 lakh rupees or such other sum as the High Court may, from time to time specify." 8. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima therefore submits that the title suit otherwise having been entertained and decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge without jurisdiction, the impugned Judgment & Order is only a nullity and therefore, the title suit should be decided afresh by the Competent Civil Judge having jurisdiction over the matter. For that purpose, this Court may either remand the case to the Civil Judge of Lunglei District having jurisdiction or may direct the respondent No. 1 to file a fresh suit before the Civil Court concerned after the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei is set aside by this Court. 9. The learned senior counsels in support of their respective submissions have relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Umadutt Jhunjhunwala Vs. Suraj KR. Longani, 2005 (4) GLT 102, (ii) Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 791 and (iii) K.P. Ranga Rao Vs. K.V. Venkatesham & Ors., (2015) 13 SCC 514 . 10. 9. The learned senior counsels in support of their respective submissions have relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Umadutt Jhunjhunwala Vs. Suraj KR. Longani, 2005 (4) GLT 102, (ii) Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 791 and (iii) K.P. Ranga Rao Vs. K.V. Venkatesham & Ors., (2015) 13 SCC 514 . 10. From the submissions and contentions advanced by the learned senior counsels for the rival parties, it would not be possible to decide the first appeal on merits, since the issue on pecuniary jurisdiction has been raised. Therefore, we shall proceed to examine as to whether the appeal should be heard by this Court or by the learned District Judge concerned or the Title Suit itself should be initiated afresh before the learned Civil Court having jurisdiction. In order to embark upon the issue raised by the parties, it would be gainful to understand what the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides with regard to the objections on jurisdiction. Section 21 (2) of the CPC may be reproduced below for ready perusal:- "21 (2) No objections as to the competence of a Civil Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction 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 a consequent failure of justice." 11. From a perusal of the materials available on record including the lower Court records, it can be seen that against the value of suit declared by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 at Rs. 2 lakhs, no objection has been raised by the opposite parties including the present appellant. It is also not the pleaded case of the appellant or otherwise that this Title Suit having been adjudicated by a Court other than the one having jurisdiction has resulted in failure of justice. A perusal of Section 21 (2) of the CPC clearly provides that objection as to the competent of the Court with reference to the pecuniary limits cannot be allowed unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance and at the earliest opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled or before such settlement and there has been a consequent failure of justice. As may be noticed, no such ingredient is found in the pleadings and materials on record and therefore, the question of remanding or directing the parties to agitate their case before the Civil Court having jurisdiction in my considered view will not arise. 12. The next question that requires to be addressed is as to whether the present appeal should be heard by this Court in spite of Section 17 (2) (a) of the Civil Courts Act expressedly providing that an appeal is to be heard by the Court of District Judge when the value of the subject matter is less than 5 lakhs rupees. On perusing the records, it is seen that although the respondent No. 1 as plaintiff had declared the value of the suit at Rs. 2 lakhs, the appellant/defendant No. 5 in the present appeal by taking into account the Land Valuation Certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities has increased the value of the appeal to Rs. 5,28,400/-. Quantification of the value of the appeal, despite the value of the suit having being declared at Rs. 2 Lakhs before the learned Trial Court without any objection from any quarters, in my considered view will not be permissible, inasmuch as, the appeal is only in continuation of the Title Suit. 13. This Court in the case of Umadutt Jhunjhunwala (Supra) while dealing with the similar subject matter with regard to the permissibility of raising objection on the entertainment of the suit by the Trial Judge despite not having the pecuniary jurisdiction has held that in order to entertain such objection at the Appellate or Revisional stage, the ingredients provided by Section 21 (2) of the CPC has to be met. Therefore, this Court having not found the objection raised by the parties concerned to have satisfied the ingredients of Section 21 (2) of the CPC had disallowed the objection that was raised. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi (Supra) has also held that the jurisdiction of the Court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as Territorial and Pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of the issues. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as Territorial and Pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of the issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at the subsequent stage. 15. In the case of K.P. Ranga Rao (Supra), the Honble Apex Court has also taken similar views and additionally observed that when the suit has finally been decreed, the same cannot be reversed purely on technical grounds unless there is a failure of justice. 16. From what can be appreciated from the materials available on record, the relevant provision of the CPC and the decisions rendered by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, a case for remand for a fresh adjudication by the competent Civil Judge having jurisdiction is not to be seen. Therefore, the question of remanding the case or asking the parties to approach the learned Civil Judge having jurisdiction at this stage does not arise. However, in respect of the appeal not being preferred before the District Judge concerned, I am of the view that since the Civil Courts Act has laid down the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court of District Judge to a subject matter whose value is less than Rs. 5 lakhs and therefore, it would only be appropriate for the appeal to be heard by the District Judge concerned having jurisdiction. 17. In that view of the matter and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is given liberty to approach the learned District Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei with her appeal and if the appellant files her appeal within a period of 30 days from today, the learned District Judge shall entertain and hear the appeal without rejecting the same on grounds of delay. Since the appellant has approached the wrong forum, the appellant is also allowed to withdraw the Court fees of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by her before this Court for depositing the same before the learned District Judge concerned when the appeal is filed. 18. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. 19. Registry to send back the LCR.