KURALLA RATNAM Vs. MOKHAMATLA BHADRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the petitioner in the lower Court. She filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. for setting aside an order dismissing her claim petition in E. A. No. 153 of 1967. She came to file the claim petition and the suit in the following manner:

(2.) The respondent in the revision petition filed O. S. No. 49 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Eluru for possession against two defendants. That suit was decreed with costs, In execution of the decree for costs in O. S. No. 49 of 1961, the respondent attached certain properties as if they belonged t the second judgment debtor. Thereupon the petitioner, who is the daughter of the second judgment-debtor filed E. A. No. 153 of 1967 claiming that the two items of the properties so attached, belonged to her and were in her possession, as they had been conveyed to her under a gift deed dated 20th September, 1963 by the second judgment-debtor. The claim petition, was, however, dismissed. It appears a revision petition was filed in this Court in C. R. P. No. 1039 of 1967 against the dismissal of the claim petition and that the revision petition was dismissed in limine. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the suit O. S. No. 329 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tadepalligudem under Order 21 Rule 63 C. P. C. for setting aside the dismissal order on her claim petition. Along with the suit she also filed I. A. No. 537 of 1967 for stay of the sale of the properties that was pending in EP. No. 109 of 1966 in O. S. No. 49 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Eluru. The lower Court dismissed the application for stay on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to stay the sale of the properties which were going on in a superior Court viz, the Subordinate Judges Court Eluru. In that view it did not go into the merits of the application. Aggrieved by that order of dismissal, the petitioner came up to this Court by way of this revision petition.

(3.) It does not appear from the order of the lower Court that any objection was taken by the respondent that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as such . Evidently the objection that was taken, was only in respect of the power of the lower Court to stay the execution of the decree of by the Subordinate Judges Court. Eluru. It must be noticed that the execution was going on only to recover costs which amount is admittedly within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower Court. It, therefore, follows that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit should have been laid in the Subordinate Judges Court, with this limited pecuniary value of the suit. Therefore, if the lower Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it must have the necessary power or jurisdiction to pass all necessary and appropriate orders in it.