SUCHA SINGH Vs. KUNDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Sucha Singh defendant against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated June 8, 1979 returning the appeal for presentation to proper Court.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of redemption dated May 23, 1975 passed by the Colllector, Tarn Taran was illegal, void and not binding on them. It was decreed by the trial Court. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the Additional District Judge, Amritsar. An objection was taken before him that the appeal was maintainable in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Amritsar as the jurisdictional value of the suit was less than Rs. 250/-. The objection prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge and he came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. He, consequently, ordered that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper Court. The defendant-appellant has come up in revision against that order to this Court.

(3.) The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in clause (1) of Rule 10-A of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been provided that if the Court is of the opinion that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court, before doing so, it shall intimate its decision to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in that eventuality has been authorised by clause (2) to make an application to the Court specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return, praying that the Court may fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the said Court and requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to the defendant. The learned counsel argues that the aforesaid provision read with Section 107(2) of the Code is applicable to the appeals. According to him, the lower Appellate Court did not follow the procedure as given in clause (1) and thus did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make an application as required, under clause (2) of Rule 10-A of Order 7 of the Code. He further argues that if an opportunity had been provided, he would have made an application and in that eventuality there was no necessity of serving the respondent again by the appellate Court having jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Food Corporation of India v. M/s Om Parkash and Others, 1980 PunLJ 107(P&H)F.A.O. No. 25 of 1979 : , decided on July 24, 1979.