SURESHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises from a suit which was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, the limit of whose pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs. 5,000/ -. The trial Court passed a decree for declaration and injunction against the defendant.

(2.) ON appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Gwalior, found that the suit was undervalued; that on his own showing it ought to have been Rs. 10,000/-The appellate Court, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the suit was remanded to the Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior, with directions to frame all necessary issues and to try the suit afresh according to law,

(3.) THE plaintiff has now come up in revision. The first contention is that by virtue of Section IX of the Suits Valuation Act, the decree of the trial Court could not be set aside. This contention cannot be accepted. It has been held in Kiransingh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 that a defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. This is subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. That section lays down two Exceptions, one of them is: unless specific objection was taken in the trial Court. In the present case a specific objection was taken in the trial Court in paragraph 12 of the written statement and an issue was also framed on that objection (Issue No. 4 ). That being so, Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is out of the way.