VINOD KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 13.9.2019, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Appeal No. 18 of 2019, filed under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act'), have filed the instant petition.

(2.) The appellate court has declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same. According to the appellate court, since the damages awarded is in excess of Rs. 25 lakhs, which is the outer limit of his pecuniary jurisdiction, as per notification issued by this court on 5.2.2016, under Section 21 of The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act 1887, therefore he is not competent to decide the appeal.

(3.) Sri Sashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Syed Fahim Ahmad, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the notification issued by this court (supra), would not apply to appeal under Section 9 of the Act. It is urged that notification is confined to an appeal from a decree, or order of the Civil Judge, where the value of the original suit, in which the order, or decree was made, does not exceed Rs. 25 lakhs. The submission is that the order challenged in appeal before the District Judge was not an order passed in any suit, but the order of the Prescribed Authority passed under Section 5 and 7 of the Act. The submission is that under Section 9 of the Act, it is the District Judge, or his designate, who alone is competent to entertain an appeal against an order passed under Section 5 and 7 of the Act.