Case: OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR LRS Vs. VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT

in Section 21 in the year 1976. Following was stated in paragraph 34, 37 and 41:- ?34. It may be noted that Section 21 provided that no objection as to place of the suing can be allowed by even an appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. In 1976, the existing section was numbered as sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) was added relating to pecuniary jurisdiction by providing that no objection as to competence of a court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection had been taken in the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there had been a consequent failure of justice……… 37. As can be seen, Amendment Act 104 of 1976 introduced sub-section (2) relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and put it on a par with the objection to territorial jurisdiction and the competence to raise an objection in that regard even in an appeal from the very decree. This was obviously done in the light of the interpretation placed on Section 21 of the Code as it existed and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act by this Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan5 followed by Hiralal Patni v. Kali Nath6 and Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu4. Therefore, there is no justification in understanding the expression ?objection as to place of suing? occurring in Section 21-A as being confined to an objection only in the territorial sense and not in the pecuniary sense. Both could be understood, especially in the context of the amendment to Section 21 brought about by the Amendment Act, as objection to place of suing. 41. In the light of the above, it is clear that no objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court which tried OS No. 61 of 1971 could be raised successfully even in an appeal against that very decree unless it had been raised at the earliest opportunity and a failure of justice or prejudice was shown. Obviously therefore, it could not be collaterally challenged. That too not by the plaintiffs therein, but by a defendant whose alienation was unsuccessfully challenged by the plaintiffs in that suit.? 56. Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is apparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 of Additional District Judge, that no objection to the competence of Additional District Judge to decide the case was taken by any of the parties. No objection having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code comes into play. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that no objection as to the competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection having been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of the Court. Sub-section (2) precludes the revisionist to raise any objection regarding competence of the court and further revisional court ought not to have allowed such objection regarding competence of Court of Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed to turn-round and contend that the court of Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any objection regarding competence of court and allowed the matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent failure of justice. 57. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not adverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In judgment of Shobhit Nigam(Supra) also, affect of Section 21 was neither considered nor raised. Section 21 contains a legislative policy which policy has an object and purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on basis of technical objections. 58. There is another judgment of Single Judge of the High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent i.e. SCC Revision No.305 of 2016, Tejumal vs. Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392. In the above case, learned Single Judge had allowed the revision under Section 25 against the judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge on the ground that the judgment of Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, High Court had noticed judgment of this court in R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. where it was held that in view of Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, objection as to the place of suing should be taken by the party concerned in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and the objection to this effect shall not be allowed by the Appellate or Revisional Court but relying on the judgment of this Court in Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan, learned Single Judge held that defect of jurisdiction whether pecuniary or territorial or to the subject matter cannot be cured and can be set up at any stage of the proceeding. 59. We are of the view that the above view of the learned Single Judge is neither in consonance with the judgment of this Court in Kiran Singh?s case nor with R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited (supra) which has been noted and referred to by learned Single Judge. Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislative policy which cannot be ignored or given a go-by by the litigants who challenges an unfavourable decision.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]31. It is true that District Judge or Additional District Judge functioning as Small Causes Courts can take cognizance of all suits irrespective of their value. But use of the words ?irrespective of their value? was in contradiction of the pecuniary value, which was given to Judge of Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge. The fact that District Judge or Additional District Judge can take cognizance of all suits irrespective of their value shall not whittle down or dilute the line of separation between two courts in taking cognizance of small cause cases. The mere fact that District Judge or Additional District Judge can take cognizance of suits of unlimited value will not empower them to take cognizance of cases, which, according to statutory Scheme can be taken only by small causes courts presided by Civil Judge. It is relevant to notice that the Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A reference is made to M.P. Mishra Vs. Sangam Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975 Allahabad 425. In the above case before the Allahabad High Court, a small cause suit was decided by the Additional District Judge, which had valuation of more than five thousand rupees. Arguments were raised that valuation of small cause case is more than five thousand rupees, hence Additional District Judge could not have decided the case as small cause case rather it ought to have been decided as a normal civil suit. In the above context, provision of U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 and U.P. Act No. 19 of 1973 by which Section 25 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was amended by adding another sub-section, i.e. sub-section(4), and the notifications issued by the High Court in above respect were noticed.The purpose of Section 15 is obvious that even though more than one court has jurisdiction to try the suit, it should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade. For example, a small cause case can be instituted in Court of Small Cause presided by Civil Judge having valuation of upto Rs. 1 lakh as on date and small cause suit having valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh can be instituted in the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge. As per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit of less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation has to be instituted in Small Causes Court presided by Civil Judge. Although, District Judge or Additional District Judge has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction but under the legislative Scheme, the suit is not to be taken cognizance by the District Judge or Additional District Judge, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. Even though if Section 15 of the C.P.C. is a provision, which regulate the institution of suits and does not affect the jurisdiction of Courts, reading the provision ofalongwith relevant provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the legislative Scheme is clear that small cause cases should be taken cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and cases having valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh by District Judge or Additional District Judge, who have been invested with the power of Small Cause Courts. Unless the above legislative intent and Scheme is followed, there shall be confusion and inconsistency. The legislative provisions have to be interpreted in a manner, which may advance the object and purpose of the Act. When clear dichotomy regarding taking cognizance of small causes suits presided by Civil Judge and by District Judge or Additional District Judge have been provided for, the said dichotomy and separation to take cognizance of cases has to be followed to further the object and purpose of legislation.common parlance, it means taking notice of. A court, therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed during discharge of his official duty.It is true that statement of objects noticed that value of subject matters brought to the courts has increased substantially, hence, pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts as well those of Small Causes Courts in State of Uttar Pradesh requires to be raised for the institution of civil suits and appeals. The amendment has raised pecuniary limits in Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The statement of objects and reasons explains the reason for increase of pecuniary jurisdiction but use of word ‘for institution? in statement of object cannot control the express language of the statutory provisions.48. We further observe that learned Single Judge in Pankaj Hotels case having noticed an earlier view of learned Single Judge in Shobhit Nigam?s case, and he being of the opinion that judgment does not lay down the correct law, appropriate course open for Single Judge was to refer the matter for consideration by a larger bench. The judgments of the High Court are relied on and followed by all sub-ordinate courts in the State. It is always better to achieve certainty by an authoritative opinion by the High Court instead of giving conflicting views by different learned Single Judges which may confuse the litigants, lawyers and sub-ordinate courts in applying the law.Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is apparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 of Additional District Judge, that no objection to the competence of Additional District Judge to decide the case was taken by any of the parties. No objection having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code comes into play. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that no objection as to the competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection having been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of the Court. Sub-section (2) precludes the revisionist to raise any objection regarding competence of the court and further revisional court ought not to have allowed such objection regarding competence of Court of Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed to turn-round and contend that the court of Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any objection regarding competence of court and allowed the matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent failure of justice.59. We are of the view that the above view of the learned Single Judge is neither in consonance with the judgment of this Court in Kiran Singh?s case nor with R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited (supra) which has been noted and referred to by learned Single Judge. Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislative policy which cannot be ignored or given a go-by by the litigants who challenges an unfavourable decision.