Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 195 (MP)

Ravikant v. Archana

2019-03-01

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 25.1.2019 by which the trial Court has returned the plaint for presenting the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction, on the ground that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed a civil suit against the respondents for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Civil suit was filed before the Court of Civil Judge Class 1, Ashoknagar. On 24.8.2018, unfortunately, the Presiding Judge expired. Issues were already framed till 24.8.2018. After the demise of the Presiding Judge, the then District Judge transferred the case to the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Ashoknagar. The evidence of one of the plaintiff's witness was also recorded. The defendants/respondents filed an application under section 151 of CPC alleging that the trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case. 3. By the impugned order dated 26.1.2019, the 4th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Ashoknagar, has returned the plaint for presentation of the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Challenging the order dated 26.1.2019, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had filed the suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction, but due to sad demise of the Presiding Officer, it was the District Judge, who had transferred the case to the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the acts of the District Judge and under these circumstances, the trial Court, instead of returning the plaint, should have referred the matter back to the District Judge, for necessary orders. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Since, the petition can be disposed of on the basis of the facts mentioned in the impugned order itself, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion, that this petition can be disposed of at the motion stage itself. 7. It appears that the petitioner had filed the Civil Suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Ashoknagar. Even the issues were framed by the Civil Judge, Class I. It is not in dispute that the Civil Judge, Class I had jurisdiction to try the suit. 7. It appears that the petitioner had filed the Civil Suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Ashoknagar. Even the issues were framed by the Civil Judge, Class I. It is not in dispute that the Civil Judge, Class I had jurisdiction to try the suit. However, on sad demise of the Presiding Officer, the suit was transferred by the District Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Class II. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had presented the suit before the incompetent Court having no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Order 7 rule 10 CPC reads as under : "O.7 Rule 10. Return of Plaint : (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted." 8. Thus, the crucial words are "the suit should have been instituted". Thus, if the plaintiff institutes a suit in a Court which does not have jurisdiction to try the same, only then, the plaint can be returned for presentation of the plaint to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, Class I is 1 crore, whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge Class II is 5 lacs. Thus, the petitioner had instituted the suit in the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction, but it appears that after the sad demise of the Presiding Judge, the District Judge wrongly transferred the case to the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, which did not have pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner cannot be punished for a wrong which has not been committed by him. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the provisions of Order 7 rule 10 CPC would not apply, and the Civil Judge Class II, instead of returning the plaint, should have referred the matter to the District Judge, Ashoknagar, for passing appropriate orders. 9. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in returning the plaint for the presentation of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. Resultantly, the order dated 25.1.2019 passed by 4th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Ashoknagar is set aside. 11. 9. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in returning the plaint for the presentation of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. Resultantly, the order dated 25.1.2019 passed by 4th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Ashoknagar is set aside. 11. The trial Court is directed to refer the matter to the District Judge, Ashoknagar for passing necessary orders. 12. Since, this petition is being allowed without issuing notice to the respondents, therefore, the respondents are granted liberty to file review petition/recall of this order, if they feel aggrieved by this order. 13. With aforesaid observations, the petition succeeds and is hereby Allowed.