TARA PRASAD SONKAR Vs. BINOD DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chandan Sharma, advocate holding brief of Sri Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned counsel for opposite parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that opposite parties instituted Small Causes Case No. 04 of 2019 (Smt. Bindo Devi and others Vs. Tara Prasad Sonkar and others) seeking eviction of revisionists- defendants from disputed property and for recovery of rent arrears also. While filing the suit, opposite parties contended that shop in question was rented at the rate of Rs.5,000.00 per month calculating the valuation of suit Rs.2,40,000.00. Revisionists- defendants disputed the rent and submitted that shop in question was rented at the rate of Rs.500.00 per month and accordingly, issue No. 2 was framed with regard to actual determination of rent as to whether it was Rs.5,000.00 or Rs.500.00 per month. He next submitted that this issue was decided in favour of revisionists-defendants accepting the rent at the rate of Rs.500.00 per month. He further submitted that once the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.500.00 per moth by deciding issue No. 2, valuation of suit has been decreed to less than one lac and Court of District Judge would have no jurisdiction to try the case in light of Sec. 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908"). Sec. 15 of CPC mandate that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try and in the present case, it has to be decided by concerned Small Causes Court. He next submitted that once the Court has no jurisdiction, order passed by the Court is nullity in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgements of Apex Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana and others; (2013) 2 SCC (LS) 841 (paragraph 7) and Om Prakash Agarwal Since deceased thr. L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and Ors; 2018 (191) AIC9 ( paragraph 20, 21, 34, 47) as well as of this Court in the matter of Prabha Rani Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors; (2013) 259 CTR (All) 118.

(3.) Learned counsel for opposite parties opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the revisionists and submitted that there are two situations; first, Court is having inherent lack of jurisdiction, second, after filing written statement or any subsequent development, Court may not have the jurisdiction to decide the case. He next submitted that in present case, it is necessarily required on the part of revisionists-defendants to raise objection with regard to jurisdiction in written submission to enable the Court to frame issue and decide the same. In the present case, suit was filed alongwith valuation of Rs.2,40,000.00 and the Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the same on the date of filing, therefore, it is not the case of lack of inherent jurisdiction. Further, while filing written statement, revisionists-defendants has never raised objection about the jurisdiction of the Court and only it was stated in written statement that suit has been filed by showing excess rent to bring the case in appellate jurisdiction of Small Causes Court for early disposal of the matter. It is also stated in written statement that just to deprive one step of appellate court at District Judgeship, excess rent has been shown. He reiterated that at no point of time, revisionists-defendants has raised objection of jurisdiction, therefore, Court is having full jurisdiction to decide the case. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Om Prakash Agarwal Since deceased thr. L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and Ors; 2018 (191) AIC9 ( paragraph 49, 56, 57) as well as of this Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Vs. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal; 2019 (3) ARC 621.