Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 949 (BOM)

Vatsaylabai v. Yamunabai

2022-03-31

PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN

body2022
JUDGMENT Prithviraj K.Chavan, J. - Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By this petition, original plaintiffs have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning two orders dated 22.7.2021 and 23.7.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangapur in Regular Civil Suit No.213/2017, by which plaint came to be returned in terms of Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, granting liberty to the plaintiffs to appear before a competent Court on 18.8.2021 to initiate a fresh suit. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane for decision of this petition, are summerized as follows. 5. Petitioners and respondents are close relatives. Petitioners have filed a suit for perpetual injunction and declaration of title over Gut No.5 admeasuring 3 acres 26 gunthas situated at Ranjangaon (Punished Tq. Gangapur, District aurangabad. (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' for the purpose of brevity) 6. During pendency of the suit, it is contended that Respondent Nos.1 to 9 sold the suit property to Respondent Nos.10 to 12 by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2017. The petitioners have an apprehension that the Respondents-defendant Nos.10 to 12 might interfere with the possession and ownership of the suit property. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in their written statement have come up with a plea that valuation of the subject property, as per the sale deed, is Rs.1,20,00,000/- and, therefore, the said Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 7. Respondent Nos.10 to 12, obviously, spoke in tune with rest of the respondents in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court. Respondent Nos.10 to 12 claimed to be bonafide purchasers of the suit property for value. 8. Learned Trial Court permitted the petitioners to amend the plaint by an order dated 23.11.2017 in view of a new development of purchase of the suit property by Respondent Nos.10 to 12. 9. The petitioners contend that the purchase of the suit property by Respondent Nos.10 to 12 is hit by a doctrine of lis pendens and would not oust the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, for, save and except perpetual injunction, no relief has been claimed qua Respondent Nos.10 to 12 as regards the execution of sale deed. 10. 9. The petitioners contend that the purchase of the suit property by Respondent Nos.10 to 12 is hit by a doctrine of lis pendens and would not oust the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, for, save and except perpetual injunction, no relief has been claimed qua Respondent Nos.10 to 12 as regards the execution of sale deed. 10. Thus, the petitioners have contended that the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is, therefore, in-consequential. 11. In the plaint, the petitioners have valued the subject of the suit for Rs.1,000/- and court fee of Rs.200 has been paid. 12. I heard Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners for a considerable period. Mr. Godhamgaonkar would strenuously argue to quash and set aside the impugned orders by emphasizing on the fact that despite a mandate of this Court in Writ Petition No.344/2019 on 23.8.2019, directing the trial court to decide an application for temporary injunction expeditiously on or before 22.10.2019, inter alia, directing the parties not to create third party right qua the suit property, the trial court turned Nelson's eye by not complying with the directions issued by this Court. The Counsel would further argue that such breach of directions tantamount to contempt of this Court. The Counsel would further argue that the learned trial court had unwantedly raised the issue of jurisdiction on its own volition instead of deciding the application seeking temporary injunction. according to the Counsel, averments in the plaint are only required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining the valuation of the subject matter. 13. Per contra, Ms. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 10 and 12, supported the impugned orders by pin-pointing the prayer clause (B) of the plaint, wherein the petitioners have sought perpetual injunction as well as declaration of their title qua the suit property against all the respondents/defendants and, therefore, the Counsel submits that the impugned orders are correct, legal and proper. 14. I am afraid, I cannot buy the arguments of Mr. Godhamgaonkar. 15. Since the petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would be essential to clarify that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised only for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. 14. I am afraid, I cannot buy the arguments of Mr. Godhamgaonkar. 15. Since the petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would be essential to clarify that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised only for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Only when a subordinate court fails to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it or exceeds its jurisdiction, which it does not have or a grave injustice has occasioned by an order, then only this Court would exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Such exercise of powers of superintendence cannot be permitted to correct mere error of law or fact and are to be exercised very sparingly. The position is no more res integra in light of various pronouncements by this Court and the apex Court, as well. 16. In cases where an alternate, efficacious statutory remedy is available for redressal of the grievances, this Court, ordinarily, would not interfere in the orders of the subordinate courts under its supervisory jurisdiction. 17. Having said so, it is unfathomable as to how and why the petitioners have moved another application before the trial court on 23.7.2021 with a prayer seeking necessary orders under Order VII Rule 10-a of the CPC and to follow the procedure pursuant to an order passed by the Court on 22.7.2021 for return of the plaint ? Be that as it may. 18. Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates an order under Rule 10 of Order VII, returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court, is appealable under the provisions of Section 104. 19. The petitioners ought to have availed the remedy available under the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. This Court under its supervisory jurisdiction cannot sit into an appeal over the impugned orders. 21. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the impugned orders, I do not deem it necessary to interfere in the same under supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 22. Corollary of the aforesaid discussion is that the petition needs to be dismissed and as such stands dismissed. 23. However, in the circumstances, and if so advised, the petitioners are at liberty to exhaust a statutory remedy available under law before the appropriate forum as stated herein above. 24. 22. Corollary of the aforesaid discussion is that the petition needs to be dismissed and as such stands dismissed. 23. However, in the circumstances, and if so advised, the petitioners are at liberty to exhaust a statutory remedy available under law before the appropriate forum as stated herein above. 24. The petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms. 25. Rule is discharged. ( PRITHVIRaJ K.CHaVaN ) JUDGE LaTER ON : 1) after pronouncement of the Judgment, at this stage, Mr. Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, seeks stay for a limited period in view of an earlier order passed by this Court on 4.8.2021,by which, an interim relief was granted to the impugned orders dated 22.7.2021 and 23.7.2021. 2) Learned Counsel for the respondents,however, strongly objects. 3) In the interest of justice, the stay granted earlier by this Court on 4.8.2021 shall continue to operate for a period of three weeks. It is made clear that there shall be no further extension of time.