Return Of Plaint Not Sole Remedy Where Court Lacks Pecuniary Jurisdiction; Suit Can Be Transferred U/S 24(5) CPC: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a suit instituted before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be transferred by the District Court to a competent court under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not the only course available once such a defect comes to light.It further held that the evidence already recorded by the court lacking jurisdiction is not wiped out by the transfer. it is for the transferee court to decide whether to retry the suit or carry on from the stage at which it was transferred, it held. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the High Court and the District Court to withdraw and transfer suits, appeals and other proceedings pending before subordinate courts at any stage. Sub-section (5) provides that a suit or proceeding may be transferred under the provision from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it. Sub-section (2) permits the transferee court to either retry the suit or proceed from the stage at which it was transferred, subject to any special directions contained in the order of transfer.Order VII Rule 10 CPC provides for return of the plaint for presentation before the court competent to entertain it.Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,“The legal position is thus clear that return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is not the sole or mandatory consequence whenever a defect of jurisdiction comes to light. Where the District Court, in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 24(5), transfers the proceedings to a court competent to entertain and decide the matter, such transfer constitutes a lawful method of remedying the defect of jurisdiction. An interpretation compelling return of the plaint in every case, notwithstanding the express language employed in Section 24(5), would elevate procedural form over substantive justice and defeat the legislative object underlying the provision.”Petitioner is a tenant of a shop at premises no. 34, Banshipura (Classic Sports), Suraj Kund Road, Meerut City, at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/-. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. Respondent-landlord instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 before the Court of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. Petitioner denied any default in his written statement. Both sides led evidence and the suit was posted for final arguments. At that stage, petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend his written statement and plead that the suit, valued at Rs. 1,06,806.45, was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, which extended only up to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Respondent thereafter approached the District Judge, Meerut under Section 24(5) CPC seeking transfer of the suit to a court competent to decide it.The District Judge allowed the transfer application, withdrew S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 from the Small Causes Court and made it over to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut for disposal in accordance with law.Aggrieved, the tenant invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that Order VII Rule 10 is procedural in character and regulates the forum before which the dispute is to be adjudicated, but cannot be read in isolation from the remaining provisions of the Code. “The width of the power under Section 24 of the Code also deserves notice. The power is not confined merely to cases involving convenience of parties or transfer on administrative grounds. It is intended to enable the superior court to ensure that proceedings are ultimately adjudicated by a forum competent in law. The provision is couched in the widest possible terms by authorising transfer “at any stage” of the proceedings and, by virtue of sub-section (5), even from a court which has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Such legislative language clearly manifests that the provision is remedial in character and is intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary procedural complications.”It held that accepting the tenant's argument would render sub-section (5) otiose, contrary to the settled rule that every provision must be given operative effect. Rejecting the argument that the evidence recorded before the transfer stood obliterated, the Court held,“Sub-section (2) of Section 24 specifically provides that the transferee court may, subject to any special directions contained in the order of transfer, either retry the suit or proceed from the stage at which it was transferred. The statute, therefore, itself contemplates continuity of proceedings after transfer and leaves it to the discretion of the transferee court to determine the appropriate course.”The Court held that Order VII Rule 10 and Section 24 operate in distinct though complementary spheres, both advancing the...

Return Of Plaint Not Sole Remedy Where Court Lacks Pecuniary Jurisdiction; Suit Can Be Transferred U/S 24(5) CPC: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Return Of Plaint Not Sole Remedy Where Court Lacks Pecuniary Jurisdiction; Suit Can Be Transferred U/S 24(5) CPC: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers