The Jharkhand High Court stated that there is no illegality if a Civil Judge (Senior Division) with unlimited financial authority handles a case valued at ₹5 lakh or less.
The Jharkhand High Court stated that it is not illegal for the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to handle cases valued at ₹5 Lakh or less. This was discussed in a Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging the Civil Judge’s decision to reject a request from the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the C.P.C. Justice Subhash Chand noted that when the plaintiffs filed the original suit, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had the authority to hear it. A written statement was submitted, and after the amendment regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif, the trial court could have properly addressed the application from the defendants, which had no issues or illegality.
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Shashank Shekhar, while Advocate Rahul Kumar Gupta represented the Respondent. The Petitioner’s Counsel argued that the Original Suit was filed against the defendants, including the petitioners, in the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, with the suit valued at ₹5 Lakh. The original defendants submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, which was rejected by the court, stating that the issue of whether the suit was undervalued could be determined by framing an issue.
It was argued that the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I did not have the authority to handle the application because the suit’s value was up to Rs.5 lacs, which meant the application should have been addressed by the Munsif Court. This was supported by a ruling from the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1315. However, the Opposite Party’s counsel disagreed, stating that the petitioner claimed in their application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC that the suit property was valued significantly above Rs.5 lacs, as indicated in the plaint. He argued that the Trial Court correctly dismissed the application, noting that the issue of valuation could only be resolved after framing the relevant issues. Additionally, it was mentioned that the original suit was filed in 2015, and at that time, it fell within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Later, while the suit was ongoing, the Munsif Court’s jurisdiction increased from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5 lacs. Therefore, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) should handle the suit, as this court has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Court deemed the argument from the Petitioner’s Counsel to be invalid because the claim in the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC states that the plaintiffs undervalued the suit, while the actual value of the property is significantly over Rs.5 lacs, which is the amount at which the suit was filed. It is important to note that when Original (Title) Suit No.628 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiffs, the monetary limit for the Munsif court was Rs.50,000. However, in 2019, this limit was raised to Rs.5 lacs due to the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts (Jharkhand Amendment) Act, 2018. The application was submitted by the petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC in 2024, the court noted.
The Court agreed with the Trial Court’s reasoning that whether the suit is undervalued should be determined after issues are framed, and the plaint cannot be dismissed based solely on the claims made in the application. It referenced a Supreme Court ruling in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors. vs. Ravinder Nath & Ors., which stated that if the original decree is found to be without jurisdiction and affected by the doctrine of ‘coram non judice’, it cannot be upheld just because the jurisdictional objection was not raised at the beginning.
The court stated that the petitioner’s counsel cannot benefit from this case law. This is because when the original suit was filed by the plaintiffs, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had the authority to handle the case. A written statement was also submitted in that suit. After the amendment act regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif, if the petitioners or defendants had submitted this application, the trial court could have properly addressed it without any issues or legal mistakes. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Lagni Mundain vs Ratan Kumari Surana
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Shashank Shekhar
Respondent: Advocate Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Surya Prakash
