DWARKANATH MITRA BISWAS Vs. SMHEMANGINI KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. The objection of the judgment-debtor is that the decree cannot be executed, inasmuch as the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to pass it. The decree under execution is a decree for about Rs. 3,500 passed by a Munsiff. The suit in which the decree was passed was a suit for accounts and was filed in the Court of a Munsiff as the value of the relief claimed in the suit was stated to be Rs. 510 in the plaint. The learned Munsiff passed a preliminary decree for accounts. An appeal was taken against this preliminary decree but it was dismissed for default. Thereafter a Commissioner was appointed to take accounts and as a result of accounting the defendants were found to be liable to pay about Rs. 3,500 to the plaintiff- decree-holder. The learned Munsiff thereupon passed a decree for that amount against the defendants.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Bose appearing on behalf of the defendant judgment-debtors is that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to pass the decree under execution. By Section 19(1), Bengal N.W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act, Act 12 of 1887, the jurisdiction of a Munsiff extends to all suits of which the value does not exceed Rs. 1,000. The Local Government however may empower a particular Munsiff to entertain suits the value of which does not exceed Rs. 2000. It is not disputed in this case that the Munsiff who tried the suits for accounts was vested with powers to try suits up to the value of Rs. 2,000. The value of a suit for accounts for purposes of jurisdiction is the same as its value for the purposes of Court-fees: see Section 8, Suits Valuation Act. By Section 7 Sub-section 4, Clause (f), Court-fees Act, the value of such a suit for purposes of Court-fees is the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The value for purposes of jurisdiction of an account suit is therefore the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint by the plaintiff for purposes of Court-fees. The suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 510. The Munsiff therefore had jurisdiction to try the suit and to pass the preliminary decree. Mr. Bose's contention is that the value of that suit for purposes of jurisdiction must be the value of the relief as found by the Court ultimately and not the tentative value put by the plaintiff in the plaint. He however could not point out any statutory provisions under which the Court after it had passed the preliminary decree could revise the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and return the plaint to another Court. Order 7, Rule 10, evidently contemplates cases where the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit from the very beginning. It is true that under Section 11, Court-fees Act, if the amount decreed is in excess of the amount claimed in the plaint, the decree cannot be executed until the deficit court fee is paid. But that section simply deals with the realization of deficit court- fees. For purposes of court-fees it may be said that the value given by the plaintiff in an account suit in the plaint is a tentative one, but there cannot be tentative valuation of a suit for purposes of jurisdiction. To hold that jurisdiction should depend on the amount for which the final decree should be passed would have this effect, that after the Munsiff passes a preliminary decree and it is found after accounts taken that the final decree must be for an amount exceeding the pecuniary limit of his jurisdiction, the entire proceedings before him, including the decree passed, should be considered as being without jurisdiction. It would also lead to many other anomalies apart from the serious question that the plaintiff would be denied his proper remedy for no fault of his: Per B, B. Ghosh, J, in Bidyadhar Bachar V/s. Manindra Nath Das .

(3.) The next contention of Mr. Bose is that in any view of the case the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for an amount in excess of Rs. 2,000. Reliance was placed by him on a decision of this Court in Gopal Singh V/s. Indra Coomar Hazra (1909) 13 C W N 493. In that case it was observed: The jurisdiction of the Court as determined by the value stated, is regulated by the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief sought. But this does not conclude the question, whether a Court of restricted pecuniary jurisdiction like the Court of the Munsif is competent to make a decree in a suit for accounts valued at less than Rs. 1,000 for an amount in excess of Rs. 1,000 which is the pecuniary limit of its jurisdiction. Upon first principles we are of opinion that the Munsif has no power to do this. This jurisdiction of a Court is the authority to hear and determine a cause.