THOMAS Vs. SAIDALAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an appeal from the judgment of the Munsiff would lie straight away to the High Court bypassing the Court of the District Judge is the problem paused in the Writ Petition. The writ petitioners/appellants have roundly flayed the decision arrived at by the District Judge holding that it would not only as a trifle misleading but also as absolutely unsound. The District Judge, after detailed probing and deciphering of the issue that came up, ordered to return the appeal memorandum filed over the decision of the Munsiff, for presentation before the High Court direct.

(2.) The course of sequence of the events in the matter is as follows: The original suit, i.e., O.S.No. 49/1982 for the relief of perpetual injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property was instituted in the Munsiff s Court on 3.3.1982 with valuation shown as Rs. 150/-. Subsequently alleging trespass effected, application for amendment in order to insert the prayer for recovery of possession with valuation modified to Rs. 12,960/- was filed. The Trial Court allowed the application. The matter was taken up before the High Court by the defendant but the same was turned down. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 5000/- and on 17.3.1987, i.e. the date of filing of the application for amendment was Rs. 15,000/- (with effect from 6.9.1983). The suit was tried and disposed of by the Munsiff on 26.2.1988. The matter was taken up in appeal before the District Court and the District Judge made over the same to the Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge heard the appeal and allowed the same on 21.8.2001 remanding the suit to the Trial Court itself for fresh disposal. The order of the Subordinate Judge was challenged before the High Court as C.M.A.No. 295/2001. The C.M.A. was disallowed and the remand order of the Subordinate Judge affirmed. Incidentally, the C.R.P.No. 2506/2001 filed in the High Court over that order allowing alteration in the plaint schedule was also disallowed. The issues involved in the suit were reconsidered by the Munsiff and disposed of on 17.2.2003. It is against the above order that the plaintiff who lost, filed the appeal before the District Judge.

(3.) During the period of the initial institution of the suit and the final disposal of the same by Trial Court i.e., a span of more than two decades (the suit was dismissed on 17.2.2003), the pecuniary jurisdiction of the different levels of the hierarchy of courts underwent substantial changes. At the time of the institution of the suit as already noted, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court was only upto Rs. 5000/-. As per Section 13(1) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, at the time the appellate jurisdiction from original decrees was up to Rs. 10,000/- in the District Court. The same was again raised to Rs. 25,000/- by the Amendment Act, 1984 with effect from 6.1.1984 and again lifted to Rs. 2 lakhs by the Amendment Act 6/96 with effect from 27.3.1996. Hence, as the time of the filing of the suit involved in the instant proceedings, i.e. on 3.3.1982, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff s Court was just Rs. 5000/- and appellate jurisdiction of the District Court was up to Rs. 10,000/-. But it so happened, as already noted above, that the suit was subsequently amended as per application filed on 17.3.1987 enhancing the valuation to Rs. 12,960/- and the same was tried and disposed of by the Munsiff. Of course, on the date of application for amendment, the Munsiff s Court had jurisdiction up to Rs. 15,000/- and the District Court had also appellate jurisdiction upto Rs. 25,000/-.