CHALLARAPU KUMARASWAMY Vs. THANNA NARASANNAIDU DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed O.S.No. 20 of 1993 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, initially against respondents 1 and 2 for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property and subsequently impleaded the 3rd respondent as a party to the suit. Consequent on the death of 1st respondent, 4th respondent and one T. Savitri were brought on record as his legal representatives. After both sides adduced evidence the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 133 of 1999 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint by introducing the relief of declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property also. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, but on revision in C.R.P.No. 1162 of 1999, a learned single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 13-6-1999 allowed the Revision petition with a direction to permit the revision petitioner to carry out the amendment within a reasonable time and gave permission to the respondents to file additional written statement, if they so desire, and directed the trial court to take up the suit for trial from the stage where it was left prior to the filing of the amendment petition, and further ordered that if the question of limitation is raised in the additional statement parties should be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence. As a result of the amendment, as sought, being allowed, since the value of the suit went beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, the learned Junior Civil Judge-1 returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. Thereafter, revision petitioner presented the plaint in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili and the same was numbered as O.S.No. 19 of 1999. In that suit, revision petitioner filed a memo taking a stand that as the Court of the Junior Civil Judge which recorded the evidence ceased to have jurisdiction and since evidence recorded by a Court not having jurisdiction cannot be acted upon, de novo trial has to be held in the suit and so he may be given an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the order impugned in this revision, rejected the prayer of the revision petitioner for de novo trial. Hence this revision.

(2.) The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to seek de novo trial in O.S.No. 19 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge?

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that after the petition for amendment of plaint was allowed, the Court in which the trial took place lost its jurisdiction and since all proceedings that took place in a Court not having jurisdiction are non est, and since the amended plaint, on being presented before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, amounts to filing of a fresh suit revision petitioner is entitled to adduce evidence afresh, ignoring the evidence recorded by the Junior Civil Judge. He further contended that at the time of passing order in C.R.P.No. 1162 of 1999 this Court was not aware that if the petition for amendment were to be allowed the suit would go out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge's Court, and on the premise that the Court of Junior Civil Judge only would have jurisdiction, gave a direction that the suit should be taken up from the stage where it was left at the time of filing of the amendment petition, and so the said order became redundant after the suit went out of the jurisdiction of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge. He placed strong reliance on Ram Kishun Rai v. Ashirtad Rai, Mohini Mohan Das v. Kunjabehari Das and Sri Amur Chand Inani v. The Union of India in support of his contention that presentation of the plaint in the Senior Civil Judge's Court amounts to institution of fresh proceedings and the proceedings that took place when the suit was pending before the Junior Civil Judge cannot be taken into consideration. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents is that revision petitioner, while seeking the amendment incorporating the relief of declaration of title, inflated the value of the suit property with a view to take the suit out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Junior Civil Judge and had designedly filed the petition for amendment when the suit was posted for arguments with a hope that he can seek fresh trial in Senior Civil Judge's Court, but since this Court in CRP No. 1162 of 1999 gave a specific direction that the suit should be taken up from the stage at which it was left prior to amendment petition, the Court below rightly refused to take up de novo trial. Relying on Ramesh Chander v. Bhushan Lal he contended that the evidence recorded by the Junior Civil Judge cannot be said to be non est.