EJ SYNNAH Vs. SPAR LYNGDOH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the jurisdiction of the appellate Court to entertain an appeal should be determined on the value of the relief claimed in the appeal or on the value of the original suit is the moot point in this appeal.

(2.) THE facts material for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. 1, as the plaintiff, instituted a money suit being Money Suit No. 1 (H) of 1998 before the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong for recovery of Rs. 1,33,398/- from the respondents No. 2 and 3 with interest from the respondents No. 2 and 3. The appellant herein was admittedly not impleaded as a party in the suit. He was, however, examined as DW 1 in the course of trial. By the judgment and decree dated 26. 06. 2003, the trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 63,796/- with interest @ 10% p. a. which were to be recovered in equal share from the respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff) and three other officials of the Directorate of Housing, Government of Meghalaya. The appellant preferred an appeal from the said judgment and decree and valued his appeal at Rs. 15,949/-, being 1/4th of the decretal amount. The learned District Judge, Shillong after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order held that since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District was limited to Rs. 20,000/- in terms of Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Code, 1887 and whereas the value of the original suit was Rs. 1,33,398/-, which should also determine the value of the appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and accordingly returned the memorandum of appeal for filing the same before the appropriate forum. According to the appellate Court the value of the appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction is the value of the original suit and not the value of the relief claimed in the appeal.

(3.) MR. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellate Court grossly erred in law in holding that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court was to be determined on the basis of the value of the original suit, which is valued at Rs. 1,33,398/- and not on the basis of the value of the relief claimed. He places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Nemi Chand and Anr. Vs. The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. , reported in AIR 1953 SC 28, in support of his contention. On the other hand, both Mr. MF Qureshi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. ND Chullai, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the remaining respondents, support the impugned judgment and order and contend that no interference is called for therein.