OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS. versus VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. on 12 October 2018

[2018] 13 S.C.R. 47

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASEDTHR. LRS. & ORS.

v.

VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 9051-9052 of 2018)

OCTOBER 12, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction of Additional District Judge (as Small CausesCourt) – To decide the cases pending before it – After amendmentby Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Suit seekingdecree of eviction, rent and damages – Filed before Small CausesCourt [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] – Suit transferred to AdditionalDistrict Judge on the ground that value of the suit property beingRs.27,775/- was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the SmallCauses Court i.e. Rs.25,000/- – During pendency of the suit beforeAdditional District Judge, by Amendment Act, pecuniary jurisdictionof the Small Causes Court was raised from Rs.25,000 to Rs. Onelakh – Defendants did not raise any objection as to maintainabilityof the suit before Addl. District Judge due to lack of jurisdiction inview of the Amendment Act – Suit was decided on merit and wasdecreed – Defendants filed Revision – High Court allowed theRevision holding that order passed by Addl. District Judge waswithout jurisdiction – On appeal, held:In view of s. 15 of CPC readwith provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 andBengal, Agra Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, legislative scheme isclear that small cause cases upto value of Rs. 1 lakh should betaken cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judgeand cases having value of more than Rs. 1 lakh by Disrtrict Judge/Addl. District Judge having power of Small Cause Court – Section15(2) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides that suit shallbe cognizable by Court of Small Causes – The word cognizabletakes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a casecognizable by it – The statement of objects and reasons explainsthe reason for increase of pecuniary jurisdiction, but use of words“for institution” therein cannot control the express language of the

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Astatutory provisions – Thus, Addl. District Judge did not havejurisdiction to try the present case – However, in view of the provisionu/s. 21 of CPC and in view of the fact that no objection was takenby defendant to the jurisdiction of Addl. District Judge before thatCourt, he is precluded from raising such objection in Revision –Therefore, even though Addl. District Judge was not competent toBdecide the suit, no interference was called for in its judgment inexercise of Revisional jurisdiction by High Court – Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 – ss. 15 and 21 – Provisional Small Cause CourtsAct, 1887 – Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 – UttarPradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015.

CInterpretation of Statutes:

Rules of interpretation – Held: Legislative provisions have tobe interpreted in a manner, which may advance the object andpurpose of the Act.

Statement of objects and reasons – As an aid to interpret thestatute – Held: Statement of objects and reasons of the statute canbe looked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intentonly when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language is obscureand ambiguous – Words in statements of objects and reasons, cannotcontrol the express language of the statutory provisions.

D

E

Judicial Propriety:

Conflicting views by Single Judge Benches of High Court –Propriety – Held: Instead of giving conflicting view, it is better toachieve certainty by an authoritative opinion by High Court.

FAllowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 Small Cause Courts were envisaged to beCourts, which may expeditiously dispose of small causes. Smallcauses were contemplated to be disposed of by the Courts byfollowing the procedure less cumbersome as compared to thoseGapplicable in the regular civil courts. By U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972,the cases by a lessor for eviction of lessee and for recovery ofrent in respect of the period of occupation was also taken in foldof small causes, which could be taken cognizance by Small CausesCourt after amendment of Clause (4) of Second Schedule of theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The amendment madeH

in Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act,1887 by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 empowered the State Governmentto confer upon any District Judge or Additional District Judgepower of Judge of Small Causes Court “for the trial of suitsirrespective of their valueby the lessor for the eviction oflessee…..” The above amendment was necessitated since theCourt of Small Causes presided by Civil Judge could haveentertained small causes suits having value of only five thousandrupees. As per amendment by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 cases bylessor for the eviction of lessee having valuation of more thanfive thousand rupees could not have been taken cognizance byCivil Judges, who were designated as Judges of Small CausesCourt to take up such cases. When Legislature treated all suitsby the lessor for the eviction of lessee from a building as a “SmallCause Suit”, a forum had to be created for deciding such casesas small cause cases. [Para 30][72-A-E]

1.2 The expression “irrespective of their value” used inSection 25 as amended was with clear intention that irrespectiveof the value, the cases filed by the lessor for the eviction of lesseeshould be treated as small causes cases and should be dealt as asmall cause case. By subsequent amendment, the Small CausesCourts presided by Civil Judge became empowered to decidecases of small cause upto twenty-five thousand rupees and casesabove twenty-five thousand rupees by lessor against lessee wereto be taken cognizance by Court of Additional District Judges.The legislative Scheme contains a clear dichotomy between cases,which could have been taken cognizance by small causes courtspresided by Civil Judge and those of small cause cases presidedby District Judge or Additional District Judge. The dividing linewas only valuation of small cause cases relating to suits by lessoragainst the lessee. Necessity to empower the District Judge/Additional District Judge to decide small cause cases relating toeviction by lessor against lessee was with the above intent. TheLegislature never intended that all cases pertaining to suits bylessor against the lessee of any valuation could be filed in anySmall Causes Court. [Para 30][72-E-H; 73-A]

1.3 It is true that District Judge or Additional District Judgefunctioning as Small Causes Courts can take cognizance of all AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asuits irrespective of their value. But use of the words“irrespective of their value” was in contradiction of the pecuniaryvalue, which was given to Judge of Small Causes Courts presidedby Civil Judge. The fact that District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge can take cognizance of all suits irrespective of their valueshall not whittle down or dilute the line of separation betweenBtwo courts in taking cognizance of small cause cases. This willnot empower them to take cognizance of cases, which, accordingto statutory Scheme can be taken only by small causes courtspresided by Civil Judge. [Para 31][73-B-C]

1.4 As per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suitCof less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation has to be instituted in SmallCauses Court presided by Civil Judge. Although, District Judgeor Additional District Judge has unlimited pecuniary jurisdictionbut under the legislative Scheme, the suit is not to be takencognizance by the District Judge or Additional District Judge,Dwhich has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. Even if Section 15 of C.P.C.is a provision, which regulates the institution of suits and doesnot affect the jurisdiction of Courts, reading the provision ofSection 15 alongwith relevant provisions of the Provincial SmallCause Courts Act, 1887 and the Bengal, Agra, Assam CivilCourts Act, 1887, the legislative Scheme is clear that small causeEcases should be taken cognizance by Small Cause Courtspresided by Civil Judge upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and caseshaving valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh by District Judge orAdditional District Judge, who have been invested with the powerof Small Cause Courts. Unless the above legislative intent andFScheme is followed, there shall be confusion and inconsistency.The legislative provisions have to be interpreted in a manner,which may advance the object and purpose of the Act. Whenclear dichotomy regarding taking cognizance of small causes suitspresided by Civil Judge and by District Judge or AdditionalDistrict Judge have been provided for, the said dichotomy andGseparation to take cognizance of cases has to be followed to furtherthe object and purpose of legislation. [Para 35][78-D-H]

1.5 When the Court of District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge could no longer take cognizance of small cause suits ofhaving less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation, it was no longer in theH

competence of Small Cause Court presided by District Judge orAdditional District Judge to proceed to decide the suit ofhaving valuation of less than Rs. 1 lakh. Proper course was totransfer the cases before a competent court to decide the suits.[Para 36][79-B-C]

1.6 Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887 bears the title “Cognizance of Suits by Courts of SmallCauses”. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that a Court ofSmall Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified inthe Second Schedule as suit excepted from the cognizance ofCourt of Small Causes. Sub-section (2)(as applicable in UttarPradesh) provides that all suits of the civil nature of which thevalue does not exceed Rs.5,000/- shall be cognizable by Court ofSmall Causes. As per the proviso to sub-section (2) in relation tosuits by lessor for the eviction of lessee from building afterdetermination of lease, the reference of Rs.5,000/- shall beconstrued as a reference to Rs.25,000/-. The keyword in theprovision is “shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes.” Theword ‘Cognizable’ is a word of wide import. It takes into itsfold institution, hearing and decision of a case cognizable by it.[Paras 38 and 42][79-E-G; 80-G]

Black’s Law Dictionary; Advanced Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar – referred to.

1.7 When the plain word in the statute i.e. Section 15(2)uses the word “cognizable” “statements of objects and reasons”which uses the word “institution” shall not whittle down, the word‘cognizable’ as used in Section 15(2). It is true that statement ofobjects noticed that value of subject matters brought to the courtshas increased substantially, hence, pecuniary jurisdiction of theCivil Courts as well those of Small Causes Courts in State ofUttar Pradesh requires to be raised for the institution of civilsuits and appeals. The amendment has raised pecuniary limits inProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The statement ofobjects and reasons explains the reason for increase of pecuniaryjurisdiction but use of word ‘for institution’ in statement of objectcannot control the express language of the statutory provisions.[Paras 42 and 43][81-A, E, F]

A

BC

D

E

FG

H

A

BC

D

E

FG

H

A1.8 Statement of objects and reasons of the statute can belooked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intentonly when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language isobscure and ambiguous. [Para 44][81-G]

1.9 The statement of object of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment)BAct, 2015 thus explains the reason for bringing the amendmentfor increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction but the word ‘institution’used in statement of object shall not control the expressedlanguage of Section 15. [Para 46][82-F-G]

1.10 The expression ‘cognizance’ used in Section 15 shallCmean and include institution, hearing and decision of the case.When statute provides that cognizance of particular cause is tobe taken by a particular court, no other court can take cognizanceof the cause, since legislature never creates or provides forparallel jurisdiction in two different courts for taking cognizanceof a cause. When Section 15 provides that all suits of civilDnature of which the value does not exceed Rs.25,000/-“shall be cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes”, thecognizance shall be taken by that very Court and no other Court.[Para 46][82-G-H; 83-A]

1.11 The proviso to sub-section (2) provides that figure ofERs.5,000/- shall be construed to Rs.25,000/-. By U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015, the figure of Rs.25,000/- stoodsubstituted by Rs.1 lac. Reading sub-section(2) read with provisoand U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 clearly means thatSmall Cause suits with valuation not exceeding Rs.1 lac shall becognizable by Court of Small Causes. [Para 47][83-B-C]F

1.12 Additional District Judge to whom small causes suitin question was transferred since its valuation was more thanRs.25,000/- was not competent to take cognizance of the suitafter U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015,when the suit in question became cognizable by Small Causes CourtGi.e. Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division.[Para 47][83-C-D]

State of Himachal Pradesh v. M. P.Gupta (2004) 2 SCC349 : 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 541; S. S. Bola v. B. D.Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522 : [1997] 2 Suppl. SCR507; Subha Ram v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCCH506 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 65 ; Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional Officer, (2003) 1 SCC 692 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 116– relied on.

Pankaj Hotel vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ 2017 –not approved.

Shobhit Nigam vs. Smt. Batulan and Another SCCRevision No. 278 of 2016 – partly approved.

M.P. Mishra vs. Sangam Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975Allahabad 425 – referred to.

2.1 The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of CivilProcedure is that when the case has been tried by a court onmerits and the judgment rendered, it should not be liable to bereversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted infailure of justice. The provisions akin to Section 21 are alsocontained in Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 and Section99 of Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 50][84-E-F]

2.2 It is apparent from the judgment of Additional DistrictJudge, that no objection to the competence of Additional DistrictJudge to decide the case was taken by any of the parties. Noobjection having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of theAdditional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Codecomes into play. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that noobjection as to the competence of the Court with reference tothe pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by anyAppellate or Revisional Court unless conditions mentionedtherein are fulfilled. Sub-section (2) precludes the revisionist toraise any objection regarding competence of the court and furtherrevisional court ought not to have allowed such objectionregarding competence of Court of Additional District Judge todecide the suit. The respondent tenant did not raise any objectionregarding competence of the Court and took a chance to obtainjudgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed to turn-round and contend that the court of Additional District Judgehad no jurisdiction to try the Small Cause Suit and the judgmentis without jurisdiction and nullity. Section 21 has been enacted tothwart any such objection by unsuccessful party who did not raiseany objection regarding competence of court and allowed thematter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the small cause A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

Asuit by Additional District Judge, the tenant has not provedthat there has been a consequent failure of justice.[Para 56][88-G-H; 89-A-D]

2.3 The High Court in the impugned judgment has notadverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. SectionB21 contains a legislative policy which policy has an object andpurpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit onbasis of technical objections. [Para 57][89-E]

2.4 Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislativepolicy which cannot be ignored or given a go-by by the litigantsCwho challenges an unfavourable decision. Therefore, High Courtcommitted error in allowing the Revision filed by the respondenttenant without taking into consideration Section 21 of the CivilProcedure Code. [Paras 59 and 61][90-B, D]

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340 :D[1955] SCR 117; R.S.D.V. Finance Company PrivateLimited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC130 : [1993] 1 SCR 455; Harshad Chiman Lal Modiv. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 : [ 2007] 4 SCR 150; Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. NemasaAmbasa Dharmadas (2007) 13 SCC 650 : [2007]E4 SCR 150 – relied on.Tejumal v. Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392 – notapproved.

Hiralal v. Kalinath and AIR 1963 SC 634, BahrainPetroleum Co. v. P. J. Pappu and Another AIR (1962)FSC 199 : [1962] SCR 747 – referred to.

3. Thus even when the court of Additional District Judgewas not competent to decide the Small Causes Suit in questionon the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction is vested in Courtof Small Causes i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015,Gno interference was called in the judgment of Additional DistrictJudge in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by High Courtin view of the provisions of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code.[Para 62][90-E]

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.v.VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.

A

4. It is always better to achieve certainty by an authoritativeopinion by the High Court instead of giving conflicting views bydifferent Single Judges which may confuse the litigants, lawyersand sub-ordinate courts in applying the law. [Para 48][83-F]

Case Law Reference

D

F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9051-9052 of 2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in S.C.C. Revision Nos. 404 and 407 of 2016

G

A. K. Singla, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Mittal, Nayan Nepal, K. Singhal,Pankaj Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.

Kanhaiya Singhal, S. U. Khan, Praveen Jain, S. K. Tyagi, Advs.for the Respondents.

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been filed bythe appellant (landlord), questioning the judgment of Allahabad High Courtin Small Causes Court Revision filed by the respondents(tenant)challenging the decree of eviction passed by Additional District Judge,BFirozabad. The issue which has arisen in these appeals pertains to thejurisdiction of Court of Additional District Judge in deciding Small CausesSuit on 22.10.2016.

2. The facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these appealsare:- C

The appellant, the landlord of premises in question filed SmallCauses Suit No. 1 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (SeniorDivision), Small Cause Court, Firozabad praying for decree ofeviction, rent and damages. By order dated 05.04.2010 passed byAdditional District Judge, the suit was transferred to the Court ofDistrict Judge, Firozabad and was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 1of 2010. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge, Small Cause Court,which at the time of filing of the suit was Rs.25,000/- was raisedfrom Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh w.e.f. 07.12.2005 vide Uttar PradeshCivil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015. The Additional District Judgeto whom the suit was transferred earlier on the ground thatpecuniary jurisdiction of the suit is more than Rs.25,000/- i.e.Rs.27,775/-, proceeded to decide the suit vide its judgment andorder dated 22.10.2016 and the suit for eviction, rent andcompensation was decreed. Aggrieved against the judgment ofAddl. District Judge, revision under Section 25 of the ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act, 1887 was filed by the tenant (respondentsto this appeal). One of the grounds taken in the revision was thatafter enactment of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015, the Court of Additional District Judge ceased to have anyjurisdiction to try the suit between lessor and lessee of a valueupto Rs. 1 lakh. The assumption subsequent thereto of thejurisdiction by the Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction.

D

E

F

G

Some other grounds were also taken for challenging thejudgment dated 22.10.2016. The High Court vide its impugnedjudgment dated 07.12.2016 allowed the Small Cause Court revisiontaking a view that order passed by Additional District Judge was H

without jurisdiction in view of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, after which date, suchcase of valuation of Rs.27,775/- could have been decided by CivilJudge (Senior Division) working as Judge Small Causes Court.The High Court relied on the earlier judgment of High Court inSCC Revision No. 278 of 2016 – Shobhit Nigam Vs. Smt.Batulan and another decided on 29.08.2016. The High Courtremanded back the Revision for a fresh decision by Small CausesCourt presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The landlordaggrieved by said judgment has come up in this appeal.

3. Shri A.K. Singla, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant contended that High Court committed an error in allowing theRevision. It is submitted that Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015 has only enhanced the jurisdiction forinstitution of small causes suit, which amendment shall have no effecton the pending cases. In the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015, there was no stipulation that pending cases of having valuationof more than Rs.25,000/- before the Court of District Judge should betransferred. He submits that no objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction ofAdditional District Judge was taken by the respondents before theAdditional District Judge, hence by virtue of Section 21 of the CivilProcedure Code, they were estopped from taking any such objection inthe Revision.

4. Shri S.U. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsrefuting the submission of the appellant contends that the Uttar PradeshCivil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, uses the word“cognizance”. If a suit is cognizable by a Court then the Court has gotthe jurisdiction not only to receive the plaint but also to decide the suit.After the amendment by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015, the Court of Additional District Judge was not only debarred fromreceiving plaints but was also not competent to decide Small CausesSuit, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. To the view taken by the HighCourt in Shobhit Nigam’s case (supra), there is a contrary view takenby the High Court in Pankaj Hotel Vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ2017. The principles and objections of pecuniary jurisdiction ascontemplated in Section 21(2) is not attracted in the present case. InShobhit Nigam’s case (supra) High Court had issued a general directionfor transferring of Regular Judge Small Causes Court Suits upto valuation AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof Rs. 1 lakh to the Civil Judge (Senior Division). He submits that specialleave petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. From the above submissions of learned counsel for the partiesand the pleadings on record, following are the issues, which arise forconsideration in this appeal:

B

i. Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015 is only prospective in nature and confined only to thefresh institution of suits in the Court of Civil Judge (SeniorDivision) w.e.f. 07.12.2015 upto valuation of Rs. 1 lakh andshall not affect the cognizance/hearing of pending suits uptoCthe valuation of Rs. 1 lakh pending in the Court of DistrictJudge/Additional District Judge?

ii. Whether the Court of District Judge/Additional District Judge,which Court was vested with the jurisdiction of Small Causessuit of the valuation of more than Rs.25,000/- w.e.f. 08.02.1991Dshall cease to have or could have still exercised the pecuniaryjurisdiction on the Small Causes Suits of Valuation upto Rs. 1lakh?

iii. Whether respondents (tenants) having not raised any objectionregarding jurisdiction of the Court of Additional District JudgeEwhere the suit was pending after amendments made by UttarPradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the respondent(tenant) is precluded to question the competence of the Courtof Additional District Judge to decide the suit vide his judgmentdated 22.10.2016 in view of Section 21 of Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 in revision filed under Section 25 of theFProvincial Small Causes Court Act?

6. Before we proceed to consider the issues, which has arisen forconsideration in this appeal, it is useful to refer the relevant statutoryprovisions relevant for the subject.

7. Two enactments namely (i) The Bengal, Agra, Assam CivilGCourts Act, 1887 and (ii) The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887,were passed with regard to constitution, jurisdiction of Civil Courts inthe then North-Western Provinces both being enforced w.e.f. 01.07.1887.The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was enacted toconsolidate and amend the law relating to Civil Courts in Bengal, the H

North-Western Provinces and Assam. Section 3 of the Act provides forConstitution of Civil Courts. Section 4 relates to number of DistrictJudges, Subordinate Judges and Munsifs. Section 17 dealt withcontinuance of proceeding of Courts ceasing to have jurisdiction. Section18 dealt with extent of original jurisdiction of District or SubordinateJudge (for the State of Uttar Pradesh, the word “Subordinate” wassubstituted with the word “Civil”). Section 19 dealt with extent ofjurisdiction of Munsif. Section 19 as applicable in the State of UttarPradesh was substituted by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1991 was to the followingeffect:- “19(1) Save as aforesaid, and subject to the provisions of sub-section(2), the jurisdiction of a Munsif extends to all like suits ofwhich the value does not exceed ten thousand rupees.

(2) The High Court may direct by notification in the official Gazette,with respect to any munsif named therein, that his jurisdictionshall exceed to all like suits of such value not exceeding twentyfive thousand rupees as may be specified in the notification.”

8. Section 25 deals with power to invest Subordinate Judges andMunsifs with Small Cause Court Jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Act asapplicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh is as follows: - “[25.[1] The High Court may by notification in the officialGazette, confer within such local limits as it thinks fit, uponany Civil Judge or Munsif, the jurisdiction of a Judge of aCourt of Small Causes under the Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 1887 for the trial of suits cognizable by suchCourts up to such value not exceeding five thousand rupeesas it thinks fit, and may withdraw any jurisdiction soconferred:

Provided that in relation to suits of the nature referred toin the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the saidAct, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupeesshall be construed as reference to twenty-five thousandrupees.]

[(2) The High Court may, by notification in the OfficialGazette, confer upon any District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes A

B

C

D

EFG

H

A

Aunder the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for thetrial of all suits(irrespective of their value), by the lessor forthe eviction of a lessee from a building after the determinationof his lease, or for the recovery from him of rent in respect ofthe period of occupation thereof during the continuance ofthe lease or of compensation for the use and occupationBthereof during the continuance of the lease or of compensationfor the use and occupation thereof after such determinationof lease, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred.

Explanation – For the purposes of this sub-section, theexpression ‘building’ has the same meaning as in Article (4)in the Second Schedule of the said Act.]

C

[(3)]x x x ]

[(4) Where the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of SmallCauses is conferred upon any District Judge of AdditionalDistrict Judge by notification under section, then,notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, all suits referred toin sub-section (2) shall be cognizable by Court of SmallCauses.]”

D

E9. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was enacted toconsolidate and amend the law relating to courts of small causesestablished beyond the Presidency town. AS the name suggests, theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 was enacted to deal with “SmallCauses”. The Object of the Act was to create a separate court fordealing with small causes. The object obviously was that small causesFmay be dealt with expeditiously. A summary procedure was alsoenvisaged for dealing with small causes. The Presidency Small CauseCourts Act, 1882 was already in place in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.In this country, before the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 wasenacted, there were different legislations applicable in different areasGwith the same object, i.e., to deal with cases of small causes effectivelyand summarily. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act 1887 was to the following effect:- “The suits cognizable in Courts of Small Causes are subject tocertain provisos, described in Section 6, Act XI of 1865, as “claimsfor money due on bond or other contract, or for rent, or for personal H

property, or for the value of such property, or for damages, whenthe debt, damage or demand does not exceed in amount or valuethe sum of five hundred rupees whether on balance of account orotherwise” and Sec. 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure providesthat “no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizablein Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of thesubject-matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundredrupees”. Since Section 6 of the Act of 1865 was enacted, a vastquantity of case-law has grown up around it, and, as the rulings ofthe Courts have not been uniform, doubts constantly arise on thequestion whether a suit is or is not a suit of the nature cognizableby a Court of Small Causes, and, consequently, whether or not,where the suit is of value not exceeding five hundred rupees andthe original decree made in it was not final but was open to appeal,an appeal will also lie from the appellate decree in the suit. Itappears to the Government of India that the conflictingconstructions placed on Section 6, of which some are due to theprogress of legislation during the last twenty years (ILR 3 All 66),render a more accurate definition necessary of the suits of whichCourts of Small Causes may take cognizance, and that legislationto this end should follow Sections 18 and 19 of the PresidencySmall Cause Courts Act, 1882, in declaring the jurisdiction of thoseCourts to extend to all suits of a civil nature, subject to specifiedexceptions. This Bill has accordingly been prepared, its primaryobject being to remove the doubts now felt as to the effect ofSection 6, Act XI of 1865; and, as several sections and parts ofsections of that Act have, from time to time, been repealed andother sections are obsolete as regards both expression and utility,it has been considered desirable to repeal the Act and re-enactthe substance of the extant portions of it……….” — Gazette ofIndia, 1886, Part V, page 8.”

10. Black’s Law Dictionary has referred to “Small Claims Court”,which explained it in following manner:- “A court that informally and expeditiously adjudicates claims thatseek damages below a specified monetary amount, usu. claims tocollect small accounts or debts.— Also termed small-debts court;conciliation court.”

ABCDEF

G

H

A11. The object as is delineated from Statements of Objects ofenactment was to provide for speedy machinery for small claims.Although, Code of Civil Procedure is applicable by virtue of Section 17of Small Causes Courts Act, but the Code of Civil Procedure itself inOrder L provides a simplified procedure excluding various rules andorders of the C.P.C. for small causes cases. Order L of the C.P.C. is asBfollows:- “1. Provincial Small Cause Courts - The provisions hereinafterspecified shall not extend to Courts constituted under the ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887)[or under the BerarSmall Cause Courts Law, 1905] or to Courts exercising theCjurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes [under the said Act orLaw], [or to Courts in [any part of India to which the said Actdoes not extend] exercising a corresponding jurisdiction] that is tosay- (a) so much of this Schedule as relates to-D

(i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of SmallCauses or the execution of decrees in such suits;

(ii) the execution of decrees against immovable property or theinterest of a partner in partnership property; E(iii) the settlement of issues; and (b) the following rules and orders:- Order II, rule 1 (frame of suit); Order X, rule 3 (record of examination of parties);F Order XV, except so much of rule 4 as provides for thepronouncement at once of judgement; Order XVIII, rules 5 to 12 (evidence); Orders XLI to XLV (appeals);G Order XLVII, rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (review); Order LI.”

12. Section 5 provided for establishment of small causes courtsby the State Government. Chapter III of the Act deals with “Jurisdictionof Courts of Small Causes”. Section 15 of the Act provides: -H

15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes-(1) A Courtof Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specifiedin the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizanceof a Court of Small Causes.

(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule andto the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force,all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceedfive hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of SmallCauses.

(3) Subject as aforesaid, the [State Government] may, by orderin writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which thevalue does not exceed one thousand rupees shall becognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in theorder.”

13. The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P.Act No. 37 of 1972) was enacted by Uttar Pradesh Legislature with thePresidential assent. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of U.P. ActNo. 37 of 1972, which are relevant for understanding the Scheme andpurpose of the amendment are to the following effect:-

“Prefatory Note—Statement of Objects and Reasons.—(1)The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, provides for asummary procedure in the trial of suits. Moreover, the decisionsof such courts are not appealable, and only one revision is provided.However such courts cannot take cognizance of suits forpossession of immovable property. By a recent amendmentcontained in Section 20(6) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulationof Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XIII of 1972),eviction suits against the tenant after the expiration of his tenancyhave been taken out from the purview of this exception and havebeen made cognizable by the small cause courts. This has beendone because in such suits the issues are usually simple. In caseswhere the question of title comes to be in issue, a small causecourt has power to return the plaint for presentation to a regularcourt. It is now proposed to delete the aforesaid amendment fromU. P. Act XIII OF 1972, and instead, to incorporate a wideramendment directly in the Provincial Small Causes Court Act,1887, so that all buildings, and not merely those buildings which A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

Aare governed by U. P. Act XIII of 1972, may be covered thereby.It is further proposed that in respect of such suits the ordinarysmall cause courts may be conferred jurisdiction to decide casesof a value up to Rs. 5,000 (instead of only Rs. 2,000 in somedistricts and Rs.1,000 in most districts, as at present) and thatcases of a higher value may be decided by District Judges sittingBas Judges of Small Causes, and revisions against such decisionsof District Judge shall lie to the High Court, while revision againstdecisions of other Courts of Small Causes may continue to lie tothe District Judge.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”C

14. As per Section 15(1), a Court of Small Causes was notcompetent to take cognizance of the suits specified in the SecondSchedule. Clause (4) of the Second Schedule of the Act was to thefollowing effect:- D“(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable property or for therecovery of an interest in such property;”

15. By Act No. 37 of 1972 amendments were made in Section 15,Section 25 and Second Schedule of the Act. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of theU.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 provides as follows:- E

“2. Amendment of Section 15 of Act IX of 1887.— In Section15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as amended inits application to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as theprincipal Act, in sub-section (3), the following proviso shall beinserted, namely:

F

F“Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the evictionof a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease,or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period ofoccupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or ofcompensation for the use and occupation thereof after suchdetermination of lease, the reference in this sub-section to twoGthousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to fivethousand rupees.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, theexpression ‘building’ has the same meaning as in Article (4) inthe Second Schedule.”

H

3. Amendment of Section 25 of Act IX of 1887.— In Section25 of the principal Act the following proviso thereto shall beinserted, namely :

“Provided that in relation to any case decided by a DistrictJudge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction ofJudge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this sectionshall vest in the High Court.”

4. Amendment of the Second Schedule to Act IX of 1887.—In the Second Schedule to the principal Act, for Article (4) thefollowing Article shall be substituted, namely :

“(4) a suit for the possession of immovable property or for therecovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suitby a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after thedetermination of his lease, and for the recovery from him ofcompensation for the use and occupation of that building aftersuch determination of lease.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this Article, the expression‘buildings, means a residential or non-residential roofedstructure, and includes any land (including any garden), garagesand out-houses, appurtenant to such building, and also includesany fittings and fixtures affixed to the building for the morebeneficial enjoyment thereof.”

16. One more amendment, which was affected by U.P. Act No.37 of 1972 was amendment in Section 25 of Bengal, Agra and AssamCivil Courts Act, which was made by Section 5 of the Act, which is tothe following effect:- “5. Amendment of Section 25 of Act XII of 1887.— Section25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, asamended in its application to Uttar Pradesh shall be re-numberedas sub-section (1) thereof, and—

(i) in sub-section (1), as so re-numbered, for the existing proviso,the following proviso shall be substituted, namely :

“Provided that in relation to suits of the nature referred toin the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the saidAct the references in this sub-section to one thousand rupees A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

and five hundred rupees shall be construed respectively asreferences to five thousand rupees and one thousandrupees.”

(ii) after sub-section (1) as so re-numbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely :

“(2) The State Government may by notification in the officialGazette, confer upon any District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causesunder the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for thetrial of all suits (irrespective of their value), by the lessorfor the eviction of a lessee from a building after thedetermination of his lease, or for the recovery from him ofrent in respect of the period of occupation thereof duringthe continuance of the lease or of compensation for the useand occupation thereof after such determination of lease,and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred.

Explanation—For the purposes of this sub-section, theexpression ‘building’ has same meaning as in Article (4) inthe Second Schedule to the said Act.

(3) The State Government may by notification in the officialGazette delegate to the High Court its powers under thissection.”

17. As noted above, the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court in sofar as State of Uttar Pradesh was concerned was to be vested in both inthe Court of Munsifs [now known as Civil Judge (Junior Division)] andCivil Judge [now designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division)]. As notedabove, Court of Small Causes were empowered to take cognizance ofsmall causes having particular pecuniary jurisdiction only. Section 25 ofthe Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 empowered theState Government by notification to confer upon any Subordinate Judgesand Munsifs with jurisdiction of Small Cause Court for the trial of suitsand cognizance of such suits upto the value as fixed in the Act. Section25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 as applicablein the State of Uttar Pradesh has been amended as has been noticedabove, where the High Court exercising power under Section 25(2) ofthe Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 can confer upon any

District Judge or Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge ofSmall Causes Court for the trial of all suits(irrespective of their value),by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee of a building after thedetermination of his lease.

18. In Section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for sub-section (2) and (3), following was substituted by U.P. Act 17 of 1991w.e.f. 15.01.1991:- “(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule andto the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force,all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceedfive thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of SmallCauses; Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the evictionof a lessee from a building after the determination of his leaseor for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period ofoccupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or ofcompensation for use and occupation thereof after thedetermination of the lease, the reference in this sub-sectionto five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference totwenty-five thousand rupees.

Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, theexpression ‘building’ has the same meaning as in Art.(4) inthe Second Schedule.”

19. Section 17 of the Act makes the Code of Civil Procedureapplicable to the Court of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it andall proceedings arising out of all such suits. By Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, Section 19, Section 21 of theBengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and Section 15 ofProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, were amended. The actcontains only four sections which is to the following effect: - “AN ACT further to amend the Bengal, Agra and Assam CivilCourts Act, 1887 and the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act-1887 in their application to Uttar Pradesh.

IT IS HEREBY enacted in the Sixty-sixth year of Republic ofIndia as follows:- A

B

CD

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

CHAPTER – IPRELIMINARY

1. (1) This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015,

(2) It shall extend to whole of Uttar Pradesh.

CHAPTER – II

Amendment of Bengal, Agra and Assam, Civil Courts Act-1887.

2. Bengal, Agra and Assam, Civil Courts Act-1887 hereinafterin this chapter referred to as the principal Act,- (a) in sub-section (1) for the words “ten thousand rupees”the words “one lakh rupees” shall be substituted; (b) in sub-section (2) for the words “twenty five thousandrupees” the words “five lakh rupees” shall be substituted.

3. In section 21 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), inclause (b)-

(a) for the words “one lakh rupees” the words “five lakhrupees” shall be substituted; and (b) for the words “five lakh rupees” the words “twenty fivelakh rupees” shall be substituted.

CHAPTER - III

Amendment of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887

4. In Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887,- (a) in sub-section(2) for the words “five thousand rupees”the words “twenty five thousand rupees” shall be substituted; (b) in the proviso to sub-section (2) for the words “twentyfive thousand rupees” the words “one lakh rupees” shall besubstituted.”

20. By the above amendment in the Provincial Small Cause CourtsAct, 1887 the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of small causes court wasincreased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh. The Judge, Small Causes Court in the State of U.P. is senior-most Civil Judge, working in the district.Although the Court of Small Causes was empowered to take cognizanceof a suit upto the valuation of Rs.1 lakh w.e.f. 07.12.2015, the suit inquestion namely Small Causes Suit No.1 of 2010 which was pending inthe Court of Additional District Judge, Firozabad continued to proceed inthe court of Additional District Judge. None of the parties raised anyobjection with regard to hearing of suit by Additional District Judge,consequently, the Additional District Judge heard the parties and byjudgment dated 22.10.2016 decreed the suit for eviction and due rent &compensation. The tenant aggrieved by the judgment of Additional DistrictJudge filed a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause CourtsAct, 1887, before the High Court.

21. One of the grounds taken before the High Court was that inview of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the Court ofAdditional District Judge ceased to have jurisdiction to try suit betweenlessor and lessee of value upto Rs.1 Lac w.e.f. 07.12.2015, assumptionof jurisdiction subsequent thereto, is without jurisdiction.

22. The High Court accepted the above submissions raised bylearned Counsel for the respondent vis-a-vis and allowed the revisionby remanding the suit for fresh decision before Small Causes Courtpresided by Civil Judge, Senior Division. Following are the reasons givenby the High Court for allowing the revision:- “...The controversy as to the jurisdiction of the Judge SmallCauses Court has been decided by this Court, vide judgmentdated 29.08.2016 passed in SCC Revision No.278 of 2016,Shobhit Nigam Vs. Smt. Batulan and another. It has beenheld that consequent to the amendment, in Section 15 of theProvincial Small Causes Court Act, an SCC Suit having avaluation between Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 lac shall lie before theSmall Cause Court presided over by a Civil Judge(SeniorDivision). The suits having a valuation of more than Rs.1 Lacwould lie before the Additional District Judge/District Judgeconstituting a Small Causes Court.

Shri Satendra Kumar-I, who has filed their counter affidavitin Court today, has not been able to effectively rebut thesubmissions made by the counsel for the revisionist.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

AUnder the circumstances, this Court finds that the orderimpugned is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside. TheSCC revision is allowed...”

23. Now we proceed to consider the issues which have arisen inthe present appeals:-B

ISSUE NO.1 & 2

24. Prior to Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015,as per Section 15(2) of Provincial Small Cause Court, 1887 as applicablein the State of Uttar Pradesh in relation to suits by lessor for eviction oflessee from building after determination of his lease after recoveringCfrom him of rent, the Court of Small Causes would have taken cognizanceof suits value of which does not exceed Rs.25,000/-. The suit was filedwith the valuation of Rs.21,175/-. The Suit was initially filed in the Courtof Civil Judge, Senior Division, Small Cause Court, Firozabad. Plaintifffiled a application for amendment which was allowed permitting theDvaluation to be enhanced to Rs.27,775/-. The suit thereafter wastransferred to the Court of District Judge and re-numbered as S.C.C.SuitNo.1 of 2010.

25. The main issue to be answered is as to whether after07.12.2015, the court of Additional District Judge where the suit in questionEwas pending could still have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit orsuit ought to have been transferred back to the court of Civil Judge,Senior Division.

26. The High Court while allowing the revision has relied on anearlier judgment of the High Court in Shobhit Nigam vs. Smt.Batulanand another (supra).F

27. In above case also the valuation of small causes suit wasRs.44,000/- and the suit was pending in the court of Additional DistrictJudge who after U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 proceeded todecide the suit wide its judgment dated 24.05.2016. S.C.C. Revisionfiled in the High Court, the same very argument was pressed that theGorder of Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction. The High Courtnoticed the provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes CourtsAct, the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 and had also takennote of the objects and reason of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015. The High Court held that the phrase “institution” as occurring in H

the objects and reasons does not confine to institution of civil suits onlyand after the amendment w.e.f. 07.12.2015, rather, District Judge andAdditional District Judge could have no jurisdiction to decide suits havingvaluation of less than Rs.1 lac and their jurisdiction shall be only withregard to those cases which has valuation of over Rs.1 lac. The HighCourt in Shobhit Nigam’s Case held that assumption of jurisdiction ofAdditional District Judge deciding the suit having valuation of Rs.44,000/- is illegal and set aside the judgment. In Shobhit Nigam’s case, theHigh Court also directed that copy of judgment be circulated to all DistrictJudges of U.P. for necessary compliance to ensure that all pending suitsof rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease fallingunder proviso to Section 15(2) of the Act upto the valuation of Rs.1,00,000/- be transferred to the Small Causes Court presided over by the seniormost Civil Judge, Senior Division of the district irrespective of the dateof their institution.

28. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted thatjudgment of Shobhit Nigam’s case does not lay down the correct law.He has relied on another judgment of learned Single Judge decided on30.08.2017 in S.C.C. Revision No.171 and 172 of 2017, Pankaj Hoteland others vs. Bal Mukund and others. Learned Single Judge whodecided the case of Pankaj Hotel and others took the contrary viewand held that U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 is only prospectivein nature and was applicable with regard to institutions of fresh suitsonly. In the suits pending, the Court of District Judge/Additional DistrictJudge continued to have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide Small CausesSuits upto the valuation of Rs.1 lac even after U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 enforced w.e.f. 07.12.2015. Learned SingleJudge referred to an earlier judgment in S.C.C. Revision defective No.76 of 2017, Sanjay Sharma alias Pintu vs. Anil Dua alias Titu, decidedon 13.07.2017 where learned Singe Judge had taken a contrary view tothe judgment of learned Single Judge in Shobhit Nigam’s Case (Supra).

29. One of the issues, which has to be answered is as to whetherthe Court of Additional District Judge, which has been invested with thejurisdiction of Small Causes Court after amendment by Uttar PradeshCivil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 could still have proceeded to decidethe Small Causes Suit w.e.f. 07.12.2015, which suits became cognizableby a Judge Small Causes Court, i.e., a Court presided by a Civil Judge.For answering the above issue, we need to find out the Scheme of SmallCause Courts Act.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A30. As noticed above, Small Cause Courts were envisaged to beCourts, which may expeditiously dispose of small causes. Small causeswere contemplated to be disposed of by the Courts by following theprocedure less cumbersome as compared to those applicable in theregular civil courts. By U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, the cases by a lessorfor eviction of lessee and for recovery of rent in respect of the period ofBoccupation was also taken in fold of small causes, which could be takencognizance by Small Causes Court after amendment of Clause (4) ofSecond Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Theamendment made in Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam CivilCourts Act, 1887 by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 empowered the StateCGovernment to confer upon any District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge power of Judge of Small Causes Court “for the trial of suitsirrespective of their valueby the lessor for the eviction of lessee…..”The above amendment was necessitated since the Court of Small Causespresided by Civil Judge could have entertained small causes suits havingvalue of only five thousand rupees. As per amendment by U.P. Act No.D37 of 1972 cases by lessor for the eviction of lessee having valuation ofmore than five thousand rupees could not have been taken cognizanceby Civil Judges, who were designated as Judges of Small Causes Courtto take up such cases. When Legislature treated all suits by the lessorfor the eviction of lessee from a building as a “Small Cause Suit”, aEforum had to be created for deciding such cases as small cause cases.The expression “irrespective of their value” used in Section 25 as amendedwas with clear intention that irrespective of the value, the cases filed bythe lessor for the eviction of lessee should be treated as small causescases and should be dealt as a small cause case. By subsequentamendment, the Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge becomeFempowered to decide cases of small cause upto twenty-five thousandrupees and cases above twenty-five thousand rupees by lessor againstlessee were to be taken cognizance by Court of Additional District Judges.The legislative Scheme contains a clear dichotomy between cases, whichcould have been taken cognizance by small causes courts presided byGCivil Judge and those of small cause cases presided by District Judge orAdditional District Judge. The dividing line was only valuation of smallcause cases relating to suits by lessor against the lessee. Necessity toempower the District Judge/Additional District Judge to decide smallcause cases relating to eviction by lessor against lessee was with theabove intent. The Legislature never intended that all cases pertaining toH

suits by lessor against the lessee of any valuation could be filed in anySmall Causes Court.

31. It is true that District Judge or Additional District Judgefunctioning as Small Causes Courts can take cognizance of all suitsirrespective of their value. But use of the words “irrespective of theirvalue” was in contradiction of the pecuniary value, which was given toJudge of Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge. The fact thatDistrict Judge or Additional District Judge can take cognizance of allsuits irrespective of their value shall not whittle down or dilute the line ofseparation between two courts in taking cognizance of small cause cases.The mere fact that District Judge or Additional District Judge can takecognizance of suits of unlimited value will not empower them to takecognizance of cases, which, according to statutory Scheme can be takenonly by small causes courts presided by Civil Judge. It is relevant tonotice that the Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider theprovisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 as applicablein the State of Uttar Pradesh. A reference is made to M.P. Mishra Vs.Sangam Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975 Allahabad 425. In the above casebefore the Allahabad High Court, a small cause suit was decided by theAdditional District Judge, which had valuation of more than five thousandrupees. Arguments were raised that valuation of small cause case ismore than five thousand rupees, hence Additional District Judge couldnot have decided the case as small cause case rather it ought to havebeen decided as a normal civil suit. In the above context, provision ofU.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 and U.P. Act No. 19 of 1973 by which Section25 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was amended byadding another sub-section, i.e. sub-section(4), and the notifications issuedby the High Court in above respect were noticed. Paragraph Nos. 5 to8, which are relevant are as follows:- “5. By the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1973 (President’sAct No. 19 of 1973) another sub-section, namely, Sub-section (4)was added to Section 25. The said Sub-section (4) reads as follows :

“Where the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causesis conferred upon any District Judge or Additional District Judgeby notification under this section, then, notwithstanding anythingcontained in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause CourtsAct, 1887 all suits referred to in Sub-section (2) shall becognizable by Court of Small Causes.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

By virtue of Section 1 (3) of the said Act of 1973 it shall be deemedthat the said Sub-section (4) came into force on the 20th September,1972, i.e. the date on which the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Actof 1972 came into force.

6. Certain notifications which have been issued may also benoticed here. Notification No. 4111 (8)/VII-A-580/72, datedSeptember 22, 1972, published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette, dated30-9-72, Part I (Page 5252), issued by the State Government laysdown as under :

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) ofSection 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887(Act IX of 1887) as amended by the U.P. Civil LawsAmendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) and incontinuation of Government Notification No. 1 (8) 69-Nyaya(Ka-II), dated September 23, 1969, the Governor is pleased todirect, that subject to the exceptions specified in the SecondSchedule to the first mentioned Act, and to the Provisions ofany enactment for the time being in force, all suite referred toin the proviso to the said sub-section of which the value doesnot exceed five thousand rupees, shall, with effect from thedate of publication of this notification, be cognizable by theCourts of Judge. Small Causes, Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut,Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra,Lucknow, and the Court of additional Judge, Small Causes,Lucknow.”

7. The State Government issued another notification on the sameday i.e. Sep. 22, 1972 dated September 22, 1972, published inUttar Pradesh Gazette, Part I, dated October 7, 1972 (page No.5973), which lays down as under :

“In exercise of the powers under Sub-section (3) of Section25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (ActXII of 1887) as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 1972, (U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) and insupersession of all earlier notifications issued in this behalf, theGovernor is pleased to delegate to the High Court of Judicatureat Allahabad the powers of the State Government under thesaid section.”

8. By Notification No. 525 dated 25-10-1972 the High Courtconferred “upon all the District Judges and Additional DistrictJudges, the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causesunder the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act IX of1887), for the trial of all suits (irrespective of their value) of thenature referred to in the said Sub-section (2).”

32. The High Court also noticed the object and purpose of UttarPradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 and High Court held thatAdditional District Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases ofvaluation of more than five thousand rupees. In Paragraph Nos. 11 and12, following was stated:- “11. The amendments which were effected by the U.P. Civil LawsAmendment Act of 1972 were motivated by a consideration thatthe suits for eviction filed by the lessors against the lessees ofbuildings took an unduly long time to be finally decided and,therefore, it was thought advisable that such suits should be triedas suits of the nature of small causes suits so that they could bedisposed of expeditiously and there could be no appeal against thedecision of the trial Court. This change was sought to be broughtabout by amending Article 4 of the Second Schedule of theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act so that a suit by a lessor forthe eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination ofhis lease and for the recovery from him of compensation for theuse and occupation of the buildings after such determination oflease was no longer excepted from the cognizance of the court ofsmall causes. Such suits, therefore, became triable by the Courtsof Judge, Small Causes and by virtue of Section 16 of the ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act they became exclusively triable by suchcourts. Of course, the limitation on account of the valuation of thesuit remained, This limitation was contained in Section 15(2) andin Section 15(3). Ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the Small CausesCourt stretched up to Rs. 1,000 under Section 15(2) of theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act. But under Section 15(3) theState Government was empowered to raise the pecuniary limit ofsuch jurisdiction to Rs. 5,000 in respect of suits between the lessorsand the lessees for eviction of the latter after the determination oftheir tenancy from buildings. This result was brought about by theaddition of the proviso to Section 15(3) by the U.P. Civil Laws A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amendment Act, 1972. As has been stated, the State Governmentissued a Notification dated Sept. 22, 1972, whereby the Court ofJudge, Small Causes situated at Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut,Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra, Lucknowand the Court of Additional Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow wereempowered to take cognizance of the suits between the lessorsand the lessees for the latter’s eviction from buildings whose valuedoes not exceed Rs. 5,000. In view of the addition of Sub-section(2) to Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Actit became possible to confer upon the District Judge or AdditionalDistrict Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causesfor the trial of suits for eviction of lessees and for recovery ofrents and damages (disregarding some minor aspects of thematter). Such a jurisdiction has been conferred upon the DistrictJudges and the Additional District Judges by the aforesaidNotification dated 25-10-1972 issued by this Court.

12. In view of the aforesaid amendments, in the district of Allahabad(from where this revision has arisen) the Court of Judge of SmallCauses had a jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suits betweenthe lessors and the lessees in respect of the latter’s eviction frombuildings provided the valuation of such suits does not exceed Rs.5,000. If the valuation exceeds Rs. 5,000 then the court of theDistrict Judge and the Additional District Judge who have beenempowered to take cognizance of such suits can try the same inthe manner in which suits of the Small Cause Court nature aretried. In Section 25(2), it is clearly stated that the District Judge orthe Additional District Judge will have the jurisdiction of a Judgeof a Court of Small Causes for the trial of the aforesaid variety ofsuits irrespective of their value. In my view, if the contention onbehalf of the applicant were to be accepted then it will be doingviolence to the said expression. Any interpretation which seeks toput a limitation on the valuation of the Suits cognizable by theDistrict Judge or the Additional District Judge will be contrary tothe clear expression used in Sub-section (2) of Section 25“irrespective of their value”. Learned counsel for the applicantplaced reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Courtreported in Raja Soap Factory v. S. P. Shantharaj [AIR (1965)SC 1449. In my view, the said pronouncement does not support

the contention on behalf of the applicant. Counsel also sought tosupport his contention by inviting my attention to Sub-section (4)added to Section 25 by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of1973. The said Sub-section (4) has been reproduced above and inthe concluding portion thereof the words used are “......... all suitsreferred to in Sub-section (2) shall be cognizable by court of SmallCauses”. It is urged that if the legislative intention were that theDistrict Judge or the Additional District Judge on whom the powersof a Judge of a Court of Small Causes have been conferred shouldtake cognizance of the aforesaid variety of suits between the lessorand the lessee then in the concluding portion of Sub-section (4)the legislature would not have used the words “Court of SmallCauses” but would have used the expression “District Judge orAdditional District Judge,” counsel contended that there is adistinction between a Court of Small Causes established underthe Provincial Small Causes Court and officers who are investedwith the powers of a Judge of Court of Small Causes. In myopinion this contention is not valid. In Mt. Sukha v. Raghunath(AIR 1917 All. 62); D. D. Vidyarthi v. Ram Pearey Lal (AIR1935 All 690); Badal Chandra v. Srikrishna Dey (AIR 1929 Cal354); Bhagwan Das v. Keshwar Lal (AIR 1923 Pat 49) andNarayan Sitaram v. Bhagu [(1907) ILR 31 Bom 314)] it has beenlaid down that the Courts on which Small Cause Court’s powersare conferred shall also be deemed to be Courts of Small Causes.Section 4 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act lays down asunder:—

“In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subjector context, “Court of Small Causes” means a Court of SmallCauses constituted under this Act. and includes any personexercising jurisdiction under this Act in any such Court.”

It is clear that the expression “Court of Small Causes” has to beinterpreted in the context in which the said expression is used. Inmy view, the expression ‘Court of Small Causes’ used at the endof subsection (4) of Section 25 really means and refers to a DistrictJudge or Additional District Judge on whom the jurisdiction of aJudge of Small Causes has been conferred.”

33. The Allahabad High Court has followed the above judgmentin several cases subsequently.

ABCDE

FG

H

A34. Whether the Additional District Judge, in the facts of the presentcase, had jurisdiction to take cognizance of small causes suits havingvaluation upto Rs. 1 lakh and could still have proceeded to decide thesuit, whose valuation was less than Rs. 1 lakh? We may also noticeprovision of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which providesthat suits shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competentBto try it. Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:- “Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest gradecompetent to try it.”

35. The purpose of Section 15 is obvious that even though moreCthan one court has jurisdiction to try the suit, it should be instituted in theCourt of lowest grade. For example, a small cause case can be institutedin Court of Small Cause presided by Civil Judge having valuation of uptoRs. 1 lakh as on date and small cause suit having valuation of more thanRs. 1 lakh can be instituted in the Court of District Judge or AdditionalDistrict Judge. As per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit ofDless than Rs. 1 lakh valuation has to be instituted in Small Causes Courtpresided by Civil Judge. Although, District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction but under the legislativeScheme, the suit is not to be taken cognizance by the District Judge orAdditional District Judge, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. Even ifESection 15 of the C.P.C. is a provision, which regulates the institution ofsuits and does not affect the jurisdiction of Courts, reading the provisionof Section 15 alongwith relevant provisions of the Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 1887 and the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887,the legislative Scheme is clear that small cause cases should be takencognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge upto theFvaluation of Rs. 1 lakh and cases having valuation of more than Rs. 1lakh by District Judge or Additional District Judge, who have beeninvested with the power of Small Cause Courts. Unless the abovelegislative intent and Scheme is followed, there shall be confusion andinconsistency. The legislative provisions have to be interpreted in aGmanner, which may advance the object and purpose of the Act. Whenclear dichotomy regarding taking cognizance of small causes suitspresided by Civil Judge and by District Judge or Additional District Judgehave been provided for, the said dichotomy and separation to takecognizance of cases has to be followed to further the object and purposeof legislation.H

36. In Pankaj Hotel case (supra), the Court took the view thatsince the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge, whichhave been invested with the power of small causes Court had unlimitedpecuniary jurisdiction, they can validly adjudicate small causes suits havingvaluation of less than Rs. 1 lakh even after amendment by Uttar PradeshCivil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, we do not approve the above view.When the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge could nolonger take cognizance of small cause suits of having less than Rs. 1lakh valuation, it was no longer in the competence of Small Cause Courtpresided by District Judge or Additional District Judge to proceed todecide the suit of having valuation of less than Rs. 1 lakh. Proper coursewas to transfer the cases before a competent court to decide the suits.It is a different matter that the Court of District Judge or AdditionalDistrict Judge when proceeded to decide the small cause suits after07.12.2015 of valuation of less than Rs. 1 lakh and neither any objectionwas raised by either of the parties nor attention of the Court was drawntowards the amendment, Section 21 of the C.P.C. is there to deal withsuch eventuality, which provision we shall hereinafter deal separately.

37. Learned Single Judge in Pankaj Hotels’ Case(Supra) hasreferred to and relied on various judgments of this Court which shall bereferred to hereinafter.

38. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887bears the title “Cognizance of Suits by Courts of Small Causes”. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that a Court of Small Causes shall nottake cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suitexcepted from the cognizance of Court of Small Causes. Sub-section(2)(as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) provides that all suits of the civilnature of which the value does not exceed Rs.5,000/- shall be cognizableby Court of Small Causes. As per the proviso to sub-section (2) in relationto suits by lessor for the eviction of lessee from building after determinationof lease, the reference of Rs.5,000/- shall be construed as a referenceto Rs.25,000/-. The keyword in the provision is “shall be cognizableby Court of Small Causes.” What is the meaning of the phrase‘Cognizable by Court of Small Causes’?

39. The word ‘Cognizance’ has been defined in Black’s LawDictionary in following manner: - AB

CD

E

F

G

H

A “Cognizance-

(1) A court’s right and power to try and to determine cases;Jurisdiction,

(2) The taking of judicial or authoritative notice.

B40. Advanced Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar defines‘Cognizance’ in the following manner: - “Cognizance.- Judicial notice or knowledge; the judicialrecognition or hearing of a cause; jurisdiction, or right totry and determine causes. It is a word of the largestimport:embracing all power, authority and jurisdiction. Theword “cognizance” is used in the sense of “right to take noticeof and determine a cause.” Taking cognizance does notinvolve any formal action, or indeed action of any kind, butoccurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind ofthe suspected commission of an offence…..”

C

D

41. This Court in (2004) 2 SCC 349, State of Himachal Pradeshvs. M.P.Gupta, had occasion to consider the expression ‘Cognizance’.The definition of word ‘Cognizance’ as given in Black’s Law Dictionarywas quoted with approval. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, followingwas stated: - E

“10……According to Black’s Law Dictionary the word“cognizance” means “jurisdiction” or “the exercise ofjurisdiction” or “power to try and determine causes”. Incommon parlance, it means taking notice of. A court, therefore,is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking noticeFof it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a publicservant who is accused of an offence alleged to have beencommitted during discharge of his official duty.

42. The statutory provisions of Section 15(2) of Provincial SmallCause Courts Act, 1887 uses the expression “shall be cognizable by theGCourt of Small Causes”. The word ‘Cognizable’ is a word of wide import.It takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a case cognizableby it. In Pankaj Hotels Case, learned Single Judge of the High Courthad noted the statement of objects of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015 and has given emphasis on word “for institution” and concludedthat amendment is prospective in nature and is applicable only to suits H

and appeals being instituted after the amendment. When the plain wordin the statute i.e. Section 15(2) uses the word “cognizable” whether“statements of objects and reasons” which uses the word “institution”shall whittle down, the word ‘cognizable’ as used in Section 15(2). Thestatement of objects and reasons of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015, are to the following effect: - “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

WHEREAS the value of the subject matters brought to thecourts has increased substantially, the pecuniary jurisdictionof the Civil Courts as well as those of Small Cause Courts inthe State of Uttar Pradesh requires to be raised for institutionof Civil Suits and appeals. It has, therefore, become necessaryto amend the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887and Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887 to increase thepecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Courts and those of smallCause Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh for securing betteradministration of Justice.

The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2015 isintroduced accordingly.”

43. It is true that statement of objects noticed that value of subjectmatters brought to the courts has increased substantially, hence, pecuniaryjurisdiction of the Civil Courts as well those of Small Causes Courts inState of Uttar Pradesh requires to be raised for the institution of civilsuits and appeals. The amendment has raised pecuniary limits in ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act, 1887. The statement of objects and reasonsexplains the reason for increase of pecuniary jurisdiction but use of word‘for institution’ in statement of object cannot control the express languageof the statutory provisions.

44. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in S.S. Bola v. B.D.Sardana , (1997) 8 SCC 522, has held that statement of objects andreasons of the statute can be looked into only as extrinsic aid to find outthe legislative intent only when the meaning of statute by its ordinarylanguage is obscure and ambiguous. In paragraph 176, following waslaid down: - “176…..But it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that theStatement of Objects and Reasons of a statute is to be looked A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Ainto as an extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent onlywhen the meaning of the statute by its ordinary language isobscure or ambiguous. But if the words used in a statute areclear and unambiguous then the statute itself declares theintention of the legislature and in such a case it would not bepermissible for a court to interpret the statute by examiningBthe Statement of Objects and Reasons for the statute inquestion.”

45. In Subha Ram vs. state of maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC506, this court again laid down that statement of objects and reasonscan be looked into for limited purpose of ascertaining condition prevailingCat the time which prompted or actuated the proposal of bill to introducethe same and the extent of existing evil of the society. Further, in Bhaijivs. Sub-Divisional Officer, (2003) 1 SCC 692, this court again reiteratedthe following principles of statutory interpretation in paragraph 11:- “11. Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons isDpermissible for understanding the background, the antecedentstate of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation tothe statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy.The weight of judicial authority leans in favour of the viewthat the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be utilizedEfor the purpose of restricting and controlling the plain meaningof the language employed by the legislature in drafting astatute and excluding from its operation such transactionswhich it plainly covers. (See Principles of StatutoryInterpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 8th Edn., 2001, pp. 206-09.)”F

D

D

46. The statement of object of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015 thus explains the reason for bringing the amendment forincreasing the pecuniary jurisdiction but the word ‘institution’ used instatement of object shall not control the expressed language of Section15. The expression ‘cognizance’ used in Section 15 shall mean and includeGinstitution hearing and decision of the case. When statute provides thatcognizance of particular cause is to be taken by a particular court, noother court can take cognizance of the cause, since legislature nevercreates or provides for parallel jurisdiction in two different courts fortaking cognizance of a cause. When Section 15 provides that all suits of H

civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs.25,000/- “shall becognizable by the Courts of Small Causes”, the cognizance shall be takenby that very Court and no other Court.

47. As noted above, the proviso to sub-section (2) provides thatfigure Rs.5,000/- shall be construed to Rs.25,000/-. By U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015, the figure of Rs.25,000/- stood substituted byRs.1 lac. Reading sub-section(2) read with proviso and U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment Act), 2015 clearly means that Small Cause suits withvaluation not exceeding Rs.1 lac shall be cognizable by Court of SmallCauses. When a Small Cause suit not exceeding value of Rs.1 lac iscognizable by Court of Small Causes, obviously, no other court can takecognizance. Additional District Judge to whom small causes suit inquestion was transferred since its valuation was more than of Rs.25,000/- was not competent to take cognizance of the suit after U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015, when the suit in questionbecame cognizable by Small Causes Court i.e. Court of Civil Judge,Senior Division. To the above extent, the judgment of learned SingleJudge in Shobhit Nigam’s Case has to be approved and judgment ofSingle Judge in Pankaj Hotels (Supra) laying down that even after07.12.2015, the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to decide thesuit in question cannot be approved.

48. We further observe that learned Single Judge in Pankaj Hotelscase having noticed an earlier view of learned Single Judge in ShobhitNigam’s case, and he being of the opinion that judgment does not laydown the correct law, appropriate course open for Single Judge was torefer the matter for consideration by a larger bench. The judgments ofthe High Court are relied on and followed by all sub-ordinate courts inthe State. It is always better to achieve certainty by an authoritativeopinion by the High Court instead of giving conflicting views by differentlearned Single Judges which may confuse the litigants, lawyers and sub-ordinate courts in applying the law.

ISSUE NO.3

49. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant thateven if the Additional District Judge was not competent to decide thesmall causes suit on 22.10.2016, the judgment of the Additional DistrictJudge was not liable to be interfered with by the revisional court in viewof Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 21 of the Code of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACivil Procedure relates to objection to jurisdiction. Section 21 of theCode of Civil Procedure is as follows:- “21. Objections to jurisdiction. — [(1)] No objection as to theplace of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or RevisionalCourt unless such objection was taken in the Court of firstinstance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all caseswhere issues are settled at or before such settlement, andunless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

B

[(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court withreference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall beallowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless suchobjection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliestpossible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled,at or before such settlement, and unless there has been aconsequent failure of justice.

C

(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Courtwith reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall beallowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless suchobjection was taken in the executing Court at the earliestpossible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequentfailure of justice.]”

D

E

50. The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedureis that when the case has been tried by a court on merits and the judgmentrendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds,unless it has resulted in failure of justice. The provisions akin to Section21 are also contained in Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 andSection 99 of Code of Civil Procedure. This Court had occasion to considerthe principle behind Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 11of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 in AIR 1954 SC 340, Kiran Singh v.Chaman Paswan. In paragraph 7 of the judgment following was laiddown: - F

G

“7……The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 of the CivilProcedure Code and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act isthe same, namely, that when a case had been tried by a courton the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liableto be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it hadresulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the legislature H

has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorialand pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration byan appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on themerits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that thedecree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, shouldbe treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11of the Suits Valuation Act.”

51. One more submission which was raised in the said appealwas considered by this Court. One of the submission of the appellantwho had instituted the suit in the subordinate court was that as per therevised valuation, the appeal against the decree of subordinate judge didnot lay before the District Court but to the High Court, hence, the judgmentof the District Judge in appeal should be ignored. The appeal in the HighCourt be treated as first appeal. It was contended that appellant hasbeen prejudiced in the above manner. Rejecting the above submissions,this court laid down following in paragraphs 11 and 12:- “11.………This argument proceeds on a misconception. The rightof appeal is no doubt a substantive right, and its deprivation is aserious prejudice; but the appellants have not been deprived ofthe right of appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Court.The law does provide an appeal against that judgment to the DistrictCourt, and the plaintiffs have exercised that right. Indeed, theundervaluation has enlarged the appellants’ right of appeal, becausewhile they would have had only a right of one appeal and that tothe High Court if the suit had been correctly valued, by reason ofthe undervaluation they obtained right to two appeals, one to theDistrict Court and another to the High Court. The complaint ofthe appellants really is not that they had been deprived of a rightof appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Court, whichthey have not been, but that an appeal on the facts against thatjudgment was heard by the District Court and not by the HighCourt. This objection therefore amounts to this that a change inthe forum of appeal is by itself a matter of prejudice for the purposeof Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.

12. The question, therefore, is, can a decree passed on appeal bya court which had jurisdiction to entertain it only by reason ofundervaluation, be set aside on the ground that on a true valuationthat court was not competent to entertain the appeal? Three High AB

C

DE

FG

H

86SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ACourts have considered the matter in Full Benches, and have cometo the conclusion that mere change of forum is not a prejudicewithin the meaning of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. VideKelu Achan v. Cheriya Parvathi Nethiar Mool Chand v. RamKishan and Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain. In our judgment, theopinion expressed in these decisions is correct………”B

52. The above principle has been reiterated by this Court in AIR(1962) SC 199, Hiralal vs. Kalinath and AIR 1963 SC 634, BahrainPetroleum Co. vs. P.J.Pappu and Another.

53. This court in (1993) 2 SCC 130, R.S.D.V. Finance CompanyCPrivate Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. had againconsidered Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraphs 7and 8, following has been laid down: - “7………It may be further noted that the learned Single Judgetrying the suit had recorded a finding that the Bombay CourtDhad jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Sub-section(1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thatno objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by anyappellate or revisional court unless such objection was takenin the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunityand in all cases where issues are settled at or before suchEsettlement and unless there has been consequent failure ofjustice. The above provision clearly lays down that suchobjection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by theappellate or revisional court subject to the followingconditions:

F

(i) That such objection was taken in the court of firstinstance at the earliest possible opportunity;

(ii) in all cases where issues are settled then at or beforesuch settlement of issues;

(iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.

G

8. In the present case though the first two conditions aresatisfied but the third condition of failure of justice is notfulfilled. As already mentioned above there was no disputeregarding the merits of the claim. The defendant has admittedthe deposit of Rs 10,00,000 by the plaintiff, as well as the H

issuing of the five cheques. We are thus clearly of the viewthat there is no failure of justice to the defendant by decreeingof the suit by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay HighCourt, on the contrary it would be totally unjust and failureof justice to the plaintiff in case such objection relating tojurisdiction is to be maintained as allowed by the DivisionBench of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction.”

54. In (2005) 7 SCC 791, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLFUniversal Ltd., this court had again considered Section 21 and otherprovisions of Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraph 30, following hasbeen laid down: - “30…………The jurisdiction of a court may be classified intoseveral categories. The important categories are (i) territorialor local jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii)jurisdiction over the subject-matter. So far as territorial andpecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to suchjurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunityand in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law iswell settled on the point that if such objection is not taken atthe earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequentstage. Jurisdiction as to subject-matter, however, is totallydistinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court hasno jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit by reasonof any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission,it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by acourt having no jurisdiction is a nullity.”

55. Again in (2007) 13 SCC 650, Subhash Mahadevasa Habibv. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, this court held that there is distinctionbetween lack of inherent jurisdiction and objection to territorial andpecuniary jurisdiction. This court noticed the amendments made in Section21 in the year 1976. Following was stated in paragraph 34, 37 and 41:- “34. It may be noted that Section 21 provided that no objectionas to place of the suing can be allowed by even an appellateor revisional court unless such objection was taken in thecourt of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity andunless there has been a consequent failure of justice. In 1976,the existing section was numbered as sub-section (1) and sub- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

section (2) was added relating to pecuniary jurisdiction byproviding that no objection as to competence of a court withreference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall beallowed by any appellate or revisional court unless suchobjection had been taken in the first instance at the earliestpossible opportunity and unless there had been a consequentfailure of justice………

B

37. As can be seen, Amendment Act 104 of 1976 introducedsub-section (2) relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and put iton a par with the objection to territorial jurisdiction and thecompetence to raise an objection in that regard even in anCappeal from the very decree. This was obviously done in thelight of the interpretation placed on Section 21 of the Codeas it existed and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act by thisCourt in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan5followed by HiralalPatni v. Kali Nath6and Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J.DPappu4. Therefore, there is no justification in understandingthe expression “objection as to place of suing” occurring inSection 21-A as being confined to an objection only in theterritorial sense and not in the pecuniary sense. Both couldbe understood, especially in the context of the amendment toSection 21 brought about by the Amendment Act, as objectionEto place of suing.

C

D

41. In the light of the above, it is clear that no objection tothe pecuniary jurisdiction of the court which tried OS No. 61of 1971 could be raised successfully even in an appeal againstthat very decree unless it had been raised at the earliestopportunity and a failure of justice or prejudice was shown.Obviously therefore, it could not be collaterally challenged.That too not by the plaintiffs therein, but by a defendant whosealienation was unsuccessfully challenged by the plaintiffs inthat suit.”

F

G

56. Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is apparent fromthe judgment dated 22.10.2016 of Additional District Judge, that noobjection to the competence of Additional District Judge to decide thecase was taken by any of the parties. No objection having been taken tothe pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, Section 21 ofHthe Civil Procedure Code comes into play. Sub-section (2) of Section 21

provides that no objection as to the competence of the Court withreference to the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed byany Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions mentioned thereinare fulfilled. No objection has been raised by respondent tenant regardingcompetence of the Court. Sub-section (2) precludes the revisionist toraise any objection regarding competence of the court and furtherrevisional court ought not to have allowed such objection regardingcompetence of Court of Additional District Judge to decide the suit. Therespondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding competence ofthe Court and took a chance to obtain judgments in his favour on merits,he cannot be allowed to turn-round and contend that the court of AdditionalDistrict Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small Cause Suit and thejudgment is without jurisdiction and nullity. Section 21 has been enactedto thwart any such objection by unsuccessful party who did not raiseany objection regarding competence of court and allowed the matter tobe heard on merits. Further, in deciding the small cause suit by AdditionalDistrict Judge, the tenant has not proved that there has been a consequentfailure of justice.

57. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not adverted toSection 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In judgment of ShobhitNigam(Supra) also, affect of Section 21 was neither considered norraised. Section 21 contains a legislative policy which policy has an objectand purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on basisof technical objections.

58. There is another judgment of Single Judge of the High Courtreferred to by the learned counsel for the respondent i.e. SCC RevisionNo.305 of 2016, Tejumal vs. Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392. Inthe above case, learned Single Judge had allowed the revision underSection 25 against the judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed by AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge on the ground that the judgment of AdditionalDistrict Judge was without jurisdiction. In paragraph 6 of the judgment,High Court had noticed judgment of this court in R.S.D.V. FinanceCompany Private Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. whereit was held that in view of Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure,objection as to the place of suing should be taken by the party concernedin the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and theobjection to this effect shall not be allowed by the Appellate or RevisionalCourt but relying on the judgment of this Court in Kiran Singh Vs.

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

AChaman Paswan, learned Single Judge held that defect of jurisdictionwhether pecuniary or territorial or to the subject matter cannot be curedand can be set up at any stage of the proceeding.

59. We are of the view that the above view of the learned SingleJudge is neither in consonance with the judgment of this Court in KiranBSingh’s case nor with R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited(supra) which has been noted and referred to by learned Single Judge.Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislative policy which cannotbe ignored or given a go-by by the litigants who challenges anunfavourable decision.

C60. We thus of the view that the view of the learned Single Judgein Tejumal Vs. Mohd. Sarfraj does not lay down the correct law andcannot be approved.

61. In the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that HighCourt committed error in allowing the S.C.C. Revision filed by theDrespondent tenant without taking into consideration Section 21 of theCivil Procedure Code.

62. We thus hold that even when the court of Additional DistrictJudge was not competent to decide the Small Causes Suit in question onthe ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction is vested in Court of SmallECauses i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015, no interferencewas called in the judgment of Additional District Judge in the exercise ofRevisional Jurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions of Section21 of Civil Procedure Code.

63. In result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the HighCourt dated 07.12.2016 is set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs.F

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.

G

H