Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dilip Khasbage, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 15/2/2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warud, rejecting his application (Ex. 101) to transfer Regular Civil Suit No. 119/2000 to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. The suit was filed by the petitioner for specific performance of a contract, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for eviction, possession, and damages. The petitioner sought transfer on the ground that the aggregate value of the suit claim (Rs. 70,600) and the counterclaim (Rs. 40,000) exceeded Rs. 1,00,000, which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Junior Division. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the immovable property involved in both claims was the same and could not be clubbed or added to determine jurisdiction. The High Court, after hearing arguments, relied on the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in A. Z. Mohammed Farooq v. State Government, AIR 1984 Ker. 126, which held that claims in a suit and counterclaim must be added together to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn., (2009) 8 SCC 646, as it dealt with vested rights of appeal and not pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the transfer of the suit to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, for disposal in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Aggregation of Claims - Section 6 Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 - The issue was whether the value of the suit claim and counterclaim should be added together to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. The court held that the claims in the suit and counterclaim must be aggregated to ascertain the subject matter of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Since the aggregate value exceeded the pecuniary limits of the Junior Division, the suit was directed to be transferred to the Senior Division. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claims in the suit and counterclaim should be added together to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court for the purpose of transferring the suit to a court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 15/2/2010, and directed the transfer of Regular Civil Suit No. 119/2000 from the court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warud to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati for disposal in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Pecuniary jurisdiction determined by aggregate of suit claim and counterclaim
- Transfer of suit to appropriate court when aggregate exceeds jurisdiction of trial court
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 146
Writ Petition No. 1924 of 2010
Shri V.M. Deshpande for petitioner, Shri S.G. Malode for respondents
Dilip s/o Kisanrao Khasbage
Leeladhar s/o Pandurang Ganorkar, Dilip s/o Jangluji Durge, Ankush s/o Sudhakarrao Durge
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order rejecting an application for transfer of a civil suit on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought transfer of Regular Civil Suit No. 119/2000 from the court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warud to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.
Filing Reason
The petitioner filed the application for transfer because the aggregate value of the suit claim (Rs. 70,600) and the counterclaim (Rs. 40,000) exceeded Rs. 1,00,000, which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Junior Division.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warud) rejected the application (Ex. 101) on 15/2/2010, holding that the immovable property involved in both claims was the same and could not be clubbed or added to determine jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the claims in the suit and counterclaim should be added together to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court for the purpose of transferring the suit to a court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the claims in the suit and counterclaim must be added together to determine pecuniary jurisdiction, relying on Pampara Philip v. Koorithottiyil Kinhimohammed, AIR 2007 Ker. 69 and A. Z. Mohammed Farooq v. State Government, AIR 1984 Ker. 126.
Respondents argued that the right of appeal and filing a counterclaim stand on different footing, relying on Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn., (2009) 8 SCC 646.
Ratio Decidendi
The claims in the suit and counterclaim must be aggregated to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Since the aggregate value exceeded the pecuniary limits of the Junior Division, the suit must be transferred to the Senior Division.
Judgment Excerpts
claims in suit and counterclaim need to be added together to find out the subject matter of suit and on it depends the pecuniary valuation relevant for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction.
the said decision (Nahar Industrial) deals with vested right of appeal and states that a plaintiff in a suit has a vested right of appeal.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 119/2000 for specific performance. The defendants filed a counterclaim for eviction, possession, and damages. The petitioner filed an application (Ex. 101) to transfer the suit to the Senior Division on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial court rejected the application on 15/2/2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869: Section 6
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
