THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1983 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners- defendants aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. No.216 of 2022 in O.S No.579 of 2021 dated 24.08.2022 on the file of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and Special Agent to Government Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam.
2. The case of the petitioners was that the respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No.579 of 2021 against the petitioners in the court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, without filing Form-8, market value certificate, and without paying proper court fee. Item No.1 of suit schedule property was a RCC building bearing No.1-40 located in 181.5 sq.yds.; item No.2 property was an extent of Acs.5.19 gts., of land situated in different survey numbers; item No.3 was an extent of Acs.1.10 gts., of land situated in different survey numbers and item No.4 was an extent of Acs.3.11 gts. of land situated in different survey numbers. The total extent of land, apart from the RCC building, was ::2:: Dr.GRR,J CRP No.1983 of 2022 Acs.10.00 gts., and its market value was very high. Even if the rental value for one year was taken, the payment of court fee would be more than Rs.5,000/- and the territorial jurisdiction for filing the suit would be before the Agent to Government. However, the respondent- plaintiff paid Rs.3,000/- towards court fee by showing the notional market value at a very lesser rate as such, the Mobile Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit which was exceeding the pecuniary limit of Rs.5,000/-. The suit had to be returned to file the same before the competent court i.e. the court of the Agent to Government at Khammam, as such, the petitioners filed I.A No.216 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. The respondent-plaintiff contended before the trial court that the court was constituted under G.O.Ms. No.406 dated 27.06.1990, Home (Courts-A) Department. In the entire G.O., the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was not mentioned. As such, it would be deemed to be on par with the court of Junior Civil Judge. As the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Junior Civil Judge was upto Rs.20.00 lakhs, the same itself had to be considered as the jurisdiction of the Agency ::3:: Dr.GRR,J CRP No.1983 of 2022 Court also. As the property was situated in agency area, the court should follow the procedure under the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 (for short 'Agency Rules'), but the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was not applicable to the agency area and Agency Courts. The CPC was applicable in agency area only at the time of execution as mentioned in the Agency Rules. Filing of the petition under Order- VII Rule-11 read with Section 151 CPC itself was not maintainable. The court was having jurisdiction to entertain the suit and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. On considering the submissions of both the parties, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam observed that the court was established by the State Government under G.O.Ms.No.406, dated 27.06.1990 Home (Courts-A) Department. In the said G.O., no limit of pecuniary jurisdiction was mentioned. The court was following the procedure for entertaining the civil suits as mentioned in the Agency Rules. The property was situated in agency area. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5030-503/2004, in old Khammam District all agency Mandals come within the purview of ::4:: Dr.GRR,J CRP No.1983 of 2022 Agency Court and the Civil Courts Act was not extended in agency area as such, the Civil Procedure Code itself was not applicable, the respondent-plaintiff paid notional value for filing the suit for injunction and dismissed the petition.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners-defendants filed this revision contending that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam in I.A. No.216 of 2022 in O.S. No.579 of 2021 dated 24.08.2022 was illegal. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that CPC was applicable in agency area. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the respondent-plaintiff had not paid the appropriate court fee and had not filed the market value certificate. As the respondent-plaintiff had not paid the proper court fee as per the A.P. Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act, the suit itself was not maintainable and ought not to have entertained. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the Agency Rules and in particular Rule 2(1) would speak that the court fee should be paid and the valuation of a suit or appeal would be made according to the provisions of the A.P. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. The ::5:: Dr.GRR,J CRP No.1983 of 2022 learned Magistrate failed to see that in view of the value of the suit schedule property, the Mobile Court had got no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit should have been filed before the Agent to the Government. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the respondent-plaintiff did not file Form-8 which was mandatory while filing the suit. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate failed to appreciate that the provisions of CPC were applicable and the suit ought to have been rejected as the respondent failed to pay the proper court fee and prayed to set aside the impugned orders.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Now the point for consideration before this Court is:
Whether the provisions of CPC are applicable and whether the court fee paid by the respondent-plaintiff is proper or not and whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction?
8. POINT: Admittedly, the suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff for perpetual injunction under Order-VII Rules 1 and 2 and Section 26 of CPC read with Rule 14 of Agency Rules and I.A. No.605 of 2021 was filed for temporary injunction under Rule 42 (c) of the Agency ::6:: Dr.GRR,J CRP No.1983 of 2022 Rules. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is situated in the agency area at Ramachandar Rao Banjar Village and Gram Panchayat, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District.
9. In Jalagam Sitarama Rao and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh1, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that:
"4. It would be seen that by virtue of sub-sec. (3) of S. 1, the Civil P. C. extends to the whole of India except (among others) of the "tribal Areas." The areas which are deemed to be "Tribal Areas for the purposes of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 1, are specified in the Explanation." "Tribal Areas" do not comprise of every area where there are tribals, but only such of those areas which immediately before the 21 day of Jan. 1972, were included in the tribal areas of Assam as referred to in para 20 of the sixth Schedule to the Constitution. However, sub-sec. (4) of S. 1 declares that in relation to the territories mentioned therein, the application of the Code shall be without prejudice to the application of any rule or regulation for the time being in force in such Islands, Agencies or such Union territories. The territories referred to therein, so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, are East Godavari, West Godavari and Visakhapatnam Agencies. It would thus be noticed that no portion of Khammam District or Warangal district falls within the exceptions specified in Cl. (A) or (b) sub-sec. (3) or (4) of S. 1 C. P. C. Therefore, the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of the territorial extent defined under S. 1 of the Act, applies to Khammam and Warangal Districts of Andhra Pradesh as well. S. 4 of the Code however declares that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force....
7. Section 9 of the Code states that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
1
AIR 1978 AP 82
::7:: Dr.GRR,J
CRP No.1983 of 2022
Where a right to property is contested that is deemed to be a suit of Civil nature. It is not disputed in these petitions that the suits filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners are with respect to immovable property...
8. The Schedule Districts Act, 1874, which was in force in the former Madras Presidency was later extended to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
9. The Agency Rules made thereunder were also amended under the Andhra Pradesh Regulation II of 1963 and came into force on 1-12-1963. By virtue of this amendment, the Andhra Pradesh Schedule District Act and the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules were enforced in the Districts of Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam and Mahaboob Nagar. The Schedule District Act itself does not contain any provisions declaring that the Civil P.C. would apply to the Schedule Districts or areas or tracts therein or the Courts constituted thereunder. S.6 authorises the local Government to appoint Officers and regulate their procedure from time to time. It also empowers it to define the jurisdiction of the officers and their powers and duties. Section 7 authorises continuance of the existing rules and the officers within the said area. Section 3 authorises the local Government to notify in the local gazette from time to time what enactments are actually in force in any of the Scheduled Districts or in any part of such Districts. Upon such a notification being issued the particular enactment shall be deemed to be in force or not in force according to tenor of such notification. Section 2 declares that the enactments mentioned in the second schedule shall be replaced. Section 5 authorises the extension of the enactments in force in any part of the territory of India to the Scheduled Districts. Section 5-A authorises the modification of those enactments in their applications to the Scheduled Districts. In exercise of these powers, the Code of Civil Procedure has not been expressly extended to the Scheduled Districts nor declared to be not in force; nor is it applied with any modifications to the scheduled Districts. However, under the Agency Rules, framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Governor under S.6 of the Scheduled Districts Act while stating the authorities shall have power to administer criminal and civil justice, it is declared under R.3 that the Courts shall, subject to the provisions contained in the Agency Rules, have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The procedure prescribed under Rr. 5 to 28 is akin to the procedure laid down under the Code of ::8:: Dr.GRR,J CRP No.1983 of 2022 Civil Procedure, but in some material aspects it is made much more simple."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division of Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hari Kishan Singh and others v. B. Narayan and others2 on the aspect that the provisions of CPC would as far as possible be applied to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act, in cases where no adequate provision was made in the Act or the Rules provided that the provisions sought to be applied were not inconsistent with any express provision of the Act or with the scheme and purpose of the enactment.
11. It was held therein that:
"...whenever any provision of the Special Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the C.P.C. the former provisions will prevail-vide sec. 4 CPC. But these circumstances, in our opinion do not prevent the application of the Civil Procedure Code to proceedings under the Act either in cases where the Act or the rules do not make any provisions or in cases where any of the provisions of the C P.C. are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules, or generally to the scheme of the Act.
If the Act and the Rules are silent with regard to any specific procedure, it would follow that the relevant provisions of the CPC would be applied provided those provisions are not inconsistent with the purposes and scheme of the Act. "
2
1971 (1) ALT 29 (DB)
::9:: Dr.GRR,J
CRP No.1983 of 2022
12. Thus, if the Act and the Rules are silent with regard to any specific procedure, it would follow that the relevant provisions of CPC could be applied provided they were not inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or with the scheme and purposes of the enactment.
13. Rule 2 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 speaks about valuation of suits. It reads as follows:
"2. (1) Court-fees shall be paid and the valuation of a suit or appeal will be made according to the provisions of the Andhra Court Fees and suits Valuation Act, 1956 (Andhra Act VII of 1956)."
14. Rule 3 speaks about jurisdiction of Courts. It reads as follows:
3. The Courts shall subject to the provisions herein contained have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
5. (1) Agency Munsiff shall has cognizance of suits for movable or immovable property not exceeding in value Rs. 500/- but shall not have cognizance of any suit in which any Zamindar, Bissoyee or any Mansubdar, Mutiadar or other feudal hill chief may be concerned:
Provided that the Agent to the State Government or Agency Divisional Officer having jurisdiction may transfer any suit in which a hill chief is concerned if both parties such transfer or consent thereto and if the value of the suit does not exceed Rs.500/- to the Agency Munsiff within whose local jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen for disposal by him.
Provided also that the Agent to the State Government with the sanction of the State Government may authorize any Agency ::10:: Dr.GRR,J CRP No.1983 of 2022 Munsiff by name to take cognizance of suits upto any amount not exceeding Rs.3000/- in value.
(2) Suits cognizable by an Agency Munsif shall be instituted only in the Court of Agency Munsif having jurisdiction.
6. With the exception firstly of suits which are cognizable by Agency Munsiffs and secondly of the suits described in Rule 7 all suits shall be instituted in the Court of the Agency Divisional Officer having jurisdiction.
7. Suits of a value exceeding Rs. 5000/- shall be instituted in the court of the Agent to the State Government or the Government Agent as the case may be.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. N.A. Siddiqui v. The State of A.P. and others3, wherein it was held that:
"In a suit for relief only of injunction without claiming declaration in respect of some Act of the authorities, the plaintiff can compute the court fee on the amount at which the values the relief sought."
16. Admittedly, under Section 6 of the Schedule Districts Act, 1874, the A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 is applicable for valuation of suits in the agency areas. As per Section 26 of the A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, in suits for injunction the valuation shall be made as follows:
"26. Suits for injunction:-
3
AIR 1973 AP 13
::11:: Dr.GRR,J
CRP No.1983 of 2022
In a suit for injunction-
(a) xxxxx;
(b) xxxxx;
(c) in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is. higher."
17. The provisions contained in clause (c) of Section 26 of the Court Fee Act are applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to compute the court fee on the notional value. The market value certificate is not compulsory for the purpose of valuation of the suit for perpetual injunction. If the court is not satisfied with the fee computed by the plaintiff, the court can value the suit for higher amount as per Section 26 (c) of the Court Fee Act. Hence this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to reject the plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in the court of Special Assistant Agent to Government and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam in filing the suit for perpetual injunction by the respondent-plaintiff.
::12:: Dr.GRR,J
CRP No.1983 of 2022
18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 24.08.2022 passed in I.A. No.216 of 2022 in O.S No.579 of 2021 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Agent to Government Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners-defendants but, however, observing that the provisions of CPC are applicable wherever the Act and the Rules are silent and where they were not inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or with the scheme and purposes of the enactment. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J November 10, 2022 KTL