MALAKAJAPPA ANDANAPPA HAMPIHOLI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is THE defendant before THE munsiff, navalgund, in final decree proceedings No. 1 of 1989. That was a proceeding initiated by THE plaintiff for drawing up a final decree pursuant to THE preliminary decree passed by THE civil judge, dharwad in o.s. No. 97 of 1985. The said suit was decreed on 11-6-1989. That suit had been filed in THE court of civil judge, dharwad, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,334.99 and it was decreed by THE said judge on 11-6-1989 for THE sum of Rs. 36,334.99 and Rs. 8,666.64 towards interest on THE decretal amount from 22-6-1985 to 11-6-1989 and Rs. 5,859.75 towards costs of THE suit. The petition for drawing up of THE final decree was filed before THE munsiff, navalgund, because THE pecuniary jurisdiction of THE munsiff had been raised to Rs. 50,000/- by THE time of THE institution of THE final decree proceeding. The objection of THE defendant is that THE application for drawing up of THE final decree has been made for Rs. 50,861.38 ps. Which is beyond Rs. 50,000/- and THErefore, THE petition for drawing up of THE final decree ought to have been filed in THE court of THE civil judge and not before THE learned munsiff. This objection to THE jurisdiction having been overruled and being aggrieved by THE finding of THE learned munsiff that he had jurisdiction to entertain this final decree application, despite THE fact that THE amount due as on THE date of THE final decree application exceeded Rs. 50,000/-, THE defendant has preferred this revision petition. The only contention that was advanced on behalf of THE revision petitioner is that Section 17 of THE Karnataka civil courts act (for short 'THE act') which states that THE jurisdiction of munsiff court shall extend to a civil nature where THE value of THE subject-matter does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- and THE value of THE subject-matter of THE final decree proceedings in this case should be taken as THE amount due as on THE date of filing of THE final decree petition and not THE value of THE subject-matter of THE suit. Therefore, it has to be seen wheTHEr in a final decree proceedings where THE value of THE subject-matter of THE suit as on THE date of THE institution of THE suit should guide THE forum or wheTHEr THE value of THE amount claimed in THE final decree proceeding should decide THE forum. In similar circumstances, this court in THE decision reported in 1977(1) kar. L.j. 173, k. Malkoji rao@kapathappa vasst. Commnr. And land acquisition officer, bellary, while determining THE forum for preferring THE appeal from THE order of THE civil judge, while interpreting Section 19 of THE act has held that what determines THE forum of appeal is not THE amount in dispute but THE amount or value of THE subject-matter of THE proceedings before THE civil judge's court. This decision has been followed by a division bench of this court in THE decision reported in 1989(2) kar. L.j. 395 (db) : ILR 1989 kar. 2272 (db), spl. Land acquisition officer, Sandeli v L.K.Sunthankar by l.rs., wherein THE same Provisions viz. Section 19 of THE act had come up for consideration and this earlier decision of THE learned single judge has been followed, and THE fact that THE amount of compensation awarded plus THE solatium and interest exceeded Rs. 1,00,000/- was held to be not a relevant consideration for THE purpose of determining as to wheTHEr THE appeal lies to this court or THE district court. It appears that even for determining THE forum for preferring THE final decree petition, for purposes of Section 17 of THE Act, it is value of THE subject-matter of THE suit as originally filed, that should determine THE forum and not THE amount that is due as on THE date of THE final decree application. The analogy with reference to THE appeals referred to in THE above said decisions would apply in all fours to support this view even in relation to Section 17 of THE Act, so far as it pertains to THE determining of THE forum for preferring a petition for grant of final decree. It is not disputed that if that yard stick is applied in view of THE enhancement of THE pecuniary jurisdiction of THE munsiff as on THE date of THE final decree petition, THE suit was cognizable by THE court of munsiff and not THE civil judge. In that view of THE matter, it is clear that THE order passed by THE learned munsiff is perfectly legal and does not call for any kind of interference and THErefore, THEre is no merit in THE revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.