GOBARDHAN LAL SONEJA Vs. BINOD KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 31 of 1985 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Begusarai for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction with regard to the suit property The value of the suit. Rs.10,025. Opposite parties No. 1 to 7 filed their written statement contesting the suit. Opposite parties No. 8 to 10 filed an application uader Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil of Procedure for adding them as parties in that suit. That was allowed. The order was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No, 151 of 1987 which was disposed of on 31-10-1987 with the direction that the suit be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The suit was pending in the court of Munsif,, Second, Begusarai, from 30-10-1987, It was ordered that the Title Suit No. 219 of 1985 filed by the opposite parties No. 8 to 10 should be heard analogous with the Title Suit No. 31 of 1985.

(2.) By order of the District Judge, the Court of Munsif received on transfer the Title Suit No. 31 of 1985, as his pecuniary jurisdiction was raised to Rs. 30,000 by an amendment in the Bengal, Agra,Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 1887 Act) with effect from 8-8-1987. In the court of the Munsif, the suit was re-numbered as title suit No. 120 of 1985. The Munsif, took up hearing of the suit and the parties closed their evidence. At that stage, the suit was transferred to the court of the Subordinate Judge- I On 31-8-1989, the opposite party No. 1 filed a petition in that Court that as the Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit when it was filed, the evidence recorded by him was without jurisdiction and all orders passed by him were void. The petitioner filed rejoinder. The court below by order dated 4-1-1990 relying on Kartik Nath Jha v. Seela Thakur 1988 BBCJ 767 : 1987 PLJR 1126, held that as 1987 Act was amended with effect from 8-8-1987 and as the Munsif had then the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain she suit valued at Rs. 5,000 all actions taken by the Munsif were void. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this civil revision application. The case was listed for admission before a learned single Judge. He was of the opinion that the case be heard by a Division Banch. The learned single Judge also observed that the record, be placed before the Hon' ble the Chief Justice, who, if thinks fit, may constitute a larger Bench. The Chief Justice ordered for listing of this case before a special Bench of three judges and this is how the case has been listed before this Bench.

(3.) The admitted facts are that the suit valued at Rs. 10,025 was filed in the court of the Sub-Judge ia 1985 The suit was filed before a court having pecuniary jurisdiction. In 1985, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif was Rs 5,000. With effect from 8-8-1987, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif was raised to Rs. 50,000 by Bihar Amendment of 1887 Act. On 16-9.1987, the District Judge ordered for transfer of the case to the court of the Munsif. When the order was passed by the District Judge, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif was Rs 30,000. None of the parties filed any application before the Munsif that he had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The hearing of the suit was taken up by the Munsif. The paries closed their evidence before that court. The suit was thereafter transferred to the court of Subordinate Judge. In the court of the Subordinate Judge, opposite party No. 1 took an objection that as in 1985, the Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a suit valued at Rs. 10,000, the hearing of the suit by him, even if it was after 8-8-1987, was without jurisdiction. As noticed above, the court below accepted the contention of the opposite patty No. 1 relying on Kartik Nath Jha, (supra) and held that all action taken by the Munsif was void