1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.10757/2009. : : Fateh Singh Vs. Smt. Prem Kumari & Ors. : : Date of Order 14.9.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. A. K. Pareek for the petitioner. Mr. G. K. Garg for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant against the order dated 27.8.2009 by which his application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 3. Shri A. K. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that late plaintiff Shri Narendra Singh filed a civil suit for possession and mesne profit against the petitioner-defendant before the Court of District Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur on 17.5.1984. He valued the suit at Rs.35,900/- for possession and Rs.7,200/- for mesne profit 2 thus total amount of valuation of suit comes to Rs.43,100/-. Vide Section 3 of Ordinance No.2/1992, the existing Section 19 of Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 was substituted by new section. This provided that Court of a Civil Judge shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceedings of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one lac rupees and the Court of Munsif shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceedings of which the value does not exceed twenty five thousand rupees. Learned District Judge transferred the suit for adjudication to the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. After coming into the force of amended Section 19 of Ordinance, 1950, the cases pending before the District Judge and Civil Judge have been transferred to the Court having competent pecuniary jurisdiction by the order of the District Judge. The aforesaid civil suit was also transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur to Additional Civil Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur by order dated 26.6.1993. After the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.222/1993 decided on 6.7.1994, the learned District Judge passed another order on 14.2.1995 by which the aforesaid civil suit was transferred from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) 3 No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur to the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the month of March, 1995. Later on this case was transferred to Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur for adjudication. It is a common case between the parties that entire evidence in the suit was recorded without any objection being raised by either of them about pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 29.8.2009. When the matter was at the stage of final arguments, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Section 24 read with Order 7 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC on 13.8.209 before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Division Bench in Tara Chand & Ors. Vs. Shradhanand & Ors. : 1995 (3) WLC, 479. It was contended that view taken by Single Bench of this Court in Ram Lal was reversed by Division Bench holding that amendment made in Section 19 of Ordinance, 1950 was retrospective. It was, therefore, contended that subsequent order passed by learned District Judge re-transferring the matter on 14.2.1995 from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur to that of Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur was not legally correct. 4 The matter ought to be, therefore, transferred back to the former court. 4. Shri G. K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that in view of Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure no objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court can be allowed to be raised by the defendant at this belated stage particularly when entire evidence has been recorded and no such objection was raised by the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that according to sub-section (2) of Section 21 of CPC defendant was required to not only take such objection in the Court of first instance but also at the earliest possible opportunity, but he has not raised such objection for almost 14 years. Learned counsel in support of this argument relied on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Mani Vs. Kishan Lal & Anr. : RLR 1996 (2), 145 and Single Bench judgment in Laxman Singh & Anr. Vs. LIC of India : RLR, 1982, 290 and in Maimuna Begum Vs. Lakshman Rabidas : AIR 1992 Gauhati, 91. Learned counsel expressed the apprehension that if now at this stage the suit is transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (Senior division) the petitioner might object to correctness or validity of the 5 evidence recorded and proceedings so far transacted in the Court of Additional District Judge. It is contended that Court of Additional District Judge being a higher court, no prejudice can be taken to have been caused to the defendant- petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that his only concern is that if eventually the matter is decided against the defendant, he may not lose his right to file appeal. He does not have any objection to validity of the evidence so far recorded and proceeding so far transacted in the court of Additional District Judge and he would not make any further objection or file any application to stall the proceedings and that he would undertake to make a final argument on the first available date or otherwise as per the direction of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent at this stage submitted that if such an appropriate directions are issued as per undertaking given by the petitioner, he would not have any objection to transfer the case to the Court of Additional Civil Judge. 6 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.8.2009 is set aside. The matter is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur with direction that both the parties shall appear there on 5.10.2009. It is further directed that the said Court shall endeavor to hear both the parties on that date or any other date in its discretion thereof and keeping in view the fact that this suit is pending since 1984, shall pass final judgment in the present matter within two months from 5.10.2009 or from the date record of the case is received in that Court from the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whichever is later. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.15.