Civil Judge (Senior Division) Has Unlimited Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Can Decide Suits Valued Below ₹5 Lakh: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction and can adjudicate suits valued below or upto Rs. 5 lakh, even if such valuation would fall under the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of Munsif.

The Court ruled that the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases does not constitute an illegality.

Justice Subhash Chand observed that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), having unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, was empowered to decide suits valued at Rs. 5 lakhs or less. He noted that such jurisdictional challenges should have been raised at the initial stage of proceedings.

Addressing the petitioners' contention, Justice Chand remarked, emphasized, “The court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) who is having the unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, even if, decides the suit of value which is up to Rs.5 lacs or below the 5 lacs, the same cannot be accepted as an illegality. The court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was empowered even the very suit which is of lesser value, since, on behalf of the petitioners/defendants, this plea was never raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC that the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

The Court clarified that questions concerning undervaluation of the suit could only be resolved by framing an issue during the trial. It explained that if the court determined the suit was undervalued, the plaintiffs could be directed to amend the plaint and deposit the deficient court fee. In the absence of compliance, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(b) would then be applicable.

Justice Chand further stated, “The very issue which was raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC whether the suit was barred by the provision of Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC could have been decided only by framing the issue by the learned trial court whether the suit is undervalued or not and if after disposal of value of the suit, the court comes to the conclusion that the suit has been undervalued and the valuation of the suit is much above which was fixed by the plaintiffs themselves and for the same the court could have directed to amend the plaint and also to deposit the deficient court fee and if the same was not so then the provision of Order VII Rule 11(b) would have hit.”

The ruling came in a civil miscellaneous petition moved by the petitioner/defendants seeking to quash the trial court's order, which rejected an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC by the defendants. The application alleged that the valuation of the suit property exceeded Rs. 5 lakh and should therefore have been decided by the court of Munsif. However, the trial court held that the question of undervaluation could only be determined after framing relevant issues.

The High Court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors. vs. Ravinder Nath & Ors. (AIR 2008 SC 1315). It declined to apply the principle of coram non judice, stating, “The benefit of this case law cannot be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, reason being in the case in hand when the original suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs at that time, the learned court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”

The Court emphasized that the suit was filed in 2015, during which the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had jurisdiction over the matter. The subsequent amendment to the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif courts did not render the proceedings before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) invalid.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision and concluded that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order.

Case Title: Lagni Mundain vs Ratan Kumari Surana and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 180

Click Here To Read Judgement