Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai vs. Manohar Anant Mundye
AI Summary
The Bombay High Court intervened in a critical jurisdictional dispute, setting aside a lower court's order to return a plaint due to overvaluation. This decision clarifies that a Civil Judge (Senior Division) possesses unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction and mandates the trial court to first address a pending application for plaint amendment, which could alter the suit's valuation, thereby preventing procedural futility and ensuring judicial efficiency.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Appellants, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration of ownership of suit property based on a sale deed dated 20th February, 2008, seeking consequential reliefs. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sindhudurg at Oros. Respondents, original defendants, filed an application (Exhibit 23) contending that the suit was overvalued for jurisdictional purposes, implying it should be heard by a Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed an impugned order dated 28th July, 2010, directing the return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Simultaneously, the Appellants had moved an application to amend the plaint, seeking to incorporate a relief for damages in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was pending before the trial court. The High Court was called upon to determine the validity of the impugned order given these circumstances.
Timeline of Events
Sale-deed related to the suit property was executed.
Appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration of ownership in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sindhudurg at Oros.
Respondents (defendants) moved an application (Exhibit 23) contending overvaluation of the suit for jurisdiction purposes.
Appellants (plaintiffs) made an application for amendment of the plaint, seeking to incorporate a relief for damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) directing the plaint to be returned to the Appellants for presentation before the appropriate Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Appeal from Order No. 919 of 2010 registered in the High Court.
High Court issued notice for final disposal at admission stage in the appeal.
High Court passed the present order, quashing the impugned order and issuing directions to the trial court.
Deadline set by the High Court for the trial judge to decide the application for amendment of the plaint.
Key Factual Findings
The Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction to entertain original suits irrespective of its valuation, possessing unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1969.
Source: Current Court Finding
An application for amendment of the plaint, seeking to incorporate a relief for damages in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, is pending before the trial court.
Source: Current Court Finding
If the amendment application for Rs. 5,00,000/- in damages is allowed, the suit's valuation would exceed the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) court.
Source: Current Court Finding
Returning the plaint without first deciding the pending application for amendment would render the entire exercise futile.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The Appellants (original plaintiffs) contended that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1969. They also argued that their pending application to amend the plaint to include a Rs. 5,00,000/- damages claim would place the suit beyond the pecuniary limits of a Civil Judge (Junior Division), thereby making the return of plaint unnecessary and futile.
Respondent's Arguments
The Respondents (original defendants), through their application at Exhibit 23, argued that the suit was overvalued, implying that its correct valuation would place it within the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Junior Division), thus necessitating the return of the plaint for presentation to the appropriate court. (Note: None appeared for respondents at the High Court hearing).
Court's Reasoning
The High Court reasoned that under Section 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1969, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) possesses unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. While Section 15 CPC generally directs suits to the lowest competent grade, this principle cannot be applied in isolation when an application to amend the plaint (seeking an increased valuation that would exceed a Junior Division court's limits) is pending. The court held that if such an amendment is allowed, the suit would then properly lie with the Senior Division. Therefore, deciding the amendment application first is a logical and necessary step to avoid an exercise in futility, making the impugned order of returning the plaint premature and unsustainable.
- Emphasis on Procedural Efficiency
- Avoidance of Futile Litigation
- Pragmatic Approach to Justice
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.The impugned order dated 28th July, 2010 is quashed and set aside.
- 2.The learned trial Judge will proceed to decide the application for amendment of the plaint on or before 15th July, 2011.
- 3.If the said application for amendment is allowed, the application at Exhibit – 23 made by the Respondents will not survive.
- 4.If the said application for amendment of the plaint is rejected, the learned trial Judge will pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the application at Exhibit – 23.
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other HC)
This is a single-judge High Court order that clarifies the procedural interplay between pecuniary jurisdiction, Section 15 of CPC, and pending amendment applications, offering significant guidance for subordinate courts and other High Courts facing similar issues.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Listed On:
18 Apr 2011
Order Text
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 919 OF 2010
Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai and others. ... Appellants
Versus
Manohar Anant Mundye and others. ... Respondents
Mr. G.R.Rege i/b Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the Appellants.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th April, 2011.
P.C.
1 On 10th August, 2010 notice for final disposal at admission stage was issued by this Court. None appears for the Respondents. The Appellants are the original plaintiffs. The Appellants filed a suit for declaration that the Appellant No.2 has become owner of the suit property on the basis of the saledeed dated 20th February, 2008. Various consequential reliefs have been prayed for in the suit. The suit has been instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sindhudurg at Oros.
2 In the said suit, an application was moved by the Respondents (defendants) at Exhibit23 contending that the suit has been overvalued for the purposes of jurisdiction and therefore, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Sindhudurg at Oros had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Appellants. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has ordered that the plaint be returned to the Appellants for presentation before the appropriate Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division).
3 The finding recorded by the learned Judge is that the suit has been overvalued and if the suit is correctly valued, the suit will be maintainable in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Vengurla. Possibly relying upon Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"), the learned trial Judge passed the impugned order of return of the plaint. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has observed that an application for amendment of the plaint has been made by the Appellants for seeking amendment of the plaint for the purposes of incorporating a relief for damages in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/.
4 I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. None appears for the Respondents when the appeal is called out today. Under the provisions of Section 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1969"), the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division has jurisdiction to entertain original suits irrespective of its valuation. The said Court has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. There are the Courts of the Civil Judges (Junior Division) established which are empowered to hear and decide all civil suits having valuation upto Rs.1,00,000/. A civil suit which could be filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) cannot be normally filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in view of the mandate of Section 15 of the said Code, which requires that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
5 In the present case, it is not in dispute that an application for amendment of the plaint made by the Appellants is pending. By the amendment, the Appellants are seeking to incorporate a prayer for damages in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/. If the said amendment is allowed, the embargo of Section 15 of the said Code will not apply inasmuch as a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Being the Court having jurisdiction over the entire District, it cannot be said that the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the application for amendment of the plaint. If the said application for amendment of the plaint is allowed, the return of the plaint will be exercise in futility as the suit will have to be entertained by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). In the circumstances, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside and the learned trial Judge will have to be directed to decide the pending application for amendment of the plaint.
6 Hence, I pass the following order:
i. The impugned order dated 28th July, 2010 is
quashed and set aside ;
- ii. The learned trial Judge will proceed to decide the application for amendment of the plaint on or before 15th July, 2011 ;
- iii. If the said application is allowed, it is obvious that application at Exhibit – 23 made by the Respondents will not survive ;
- iv. If the said application for amendment of the plaint is rejected, the learned trial Judge will pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the application at Exhibit – 23 ;
- v. Appeal from Order is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs:
- vi. Civil Application No. 1128 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of.
[ A.S.OKA, J ]
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order