S. 21 CPC| Objection To Pecuniary Jurisdiction To Be Taken At First Instance At Earliest Possible Opportunity: Rajasthan High Court

Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled,

"It is settled position of law as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity".

Notably, the court also observed that adjournments in the suit should not be granted without just cause and when unnecessarily warranted be, by a reasoned order or on a proper application in writing there being filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The court added that the trial court should also adhere to the principles laid down in M/s. Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (9) SCC 678, wherein Apex Court held that adjournments should be ordinarily limited to three/four times in the life of the suit as also as per the provisions of Order 17 CPC.

In furtherance, the court directed the trial court to dispose of the underlying suit pending before it since 2008 within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The parties are also directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.01.2022.

Facts

The plaintiff-appellant had moved the trial Court by filing a suit for declaration, possession, damages, mandatory and permanent injunction with regard to alleged trespassing of his land by the Mafias. The instant petition was filed by the appellant after the application filed by the defendants-respondents was allowed and the plaint was ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing the same before the Competent Court.

Arguments

The counsel for the plaintiff argued that after recording the evidence of both the sides on all the issues, the case was posted for final arguments and at that stage the defendants submitted an application on 10.08.2021 stating therein that the learned court below has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Relying on Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. 2005, the counsel submitted that the trial court overlooked the provisions of Section 21 of CPC,1908 and had erroneously accepted the defendants' application by returning the plaint to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing the same before the Competent Court. He further argued that the impugned order must be quashed as 13 years have passed after filing of the suit, and the plaintiff would be seriously prejudiced, in case the impugned order is allowed.

In contrast, the counsel on behalf of defendants contended that from bare perusal of the contents of the plaint, it is clear that the trial court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and hence, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order.

Relying on multiple Apex Court's ruling, defendants' counsel further submits that the objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction can be taken at any stage even before the pronouncement of the judgment. While praying for the rejection of appeal, he also argued that the trial court has ample jurisdiction under Order 14 Rule 5 to frame any additional issue at any stage before disposal of the suit.

Findings

The court opined that It is not in dispute that the suit was filed in the year 2008 and on bare perusal of the plaint, it is clear that the valuation of the suit was mentioned. The court added that the plea was also taken therein that the trial court is competent to hear and decide the controversy in question on the basis of the valuation determined in the plaint by the plaintiff.

The court also observed that when the written statement was submitted, no such objection in their plea was ever taken by the defendants in their written statement.

Case Title: Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti & Ors.