VBHC MUMBAI VALUE HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1, challenging the order dtd. 15/1/2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.No.98/2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the order dtd. 8/11/2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') on I.A.Nos.I and II in O.S.No.1273/2024 has been confirmed.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration. Along with the plaint, they have filed I.A.No.I under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court by order dtd. 30/7/2024 granted ex-parte interim order in favour of the plaintiffs. After appearance, the defendants have filed I.A.No.II under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC seeking for vacation of interim order granted by the trial Court on 30/7/2024 in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court by common order dtd. 8/11/2024 has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed the appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.No.98/2024. The First Appellate Court by order dtd. 15/1/2025 has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court dtd. 8/11/2024. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this Court in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds. One of the main grounds is that the suit filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. For the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have produced the valuation slip and have valued the suit property at Rs.50,00,000.00. The trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the injunction order passed by the trial Court is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court must be raised before the Court of the first instance, and cannot be raised before the First Appellate Court. According to Sec. 21(2) of CPC, no objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. The First Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the appeal. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.