Jharkhand High Court
Yamuna Das Sarda @ Jamuna Das Sarda vs Smt. Rita Lal & Others on 7 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.98 of 2003
------
Yamuna Das Sarda @ Jamuna Das Sarda .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rita Lal & Others .... .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Pd., Sr. Advocate
Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
------
Order No.60 Dated- 07/12/2022
I.A. No.2052 of 2021
Heard the parties.
2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that this
interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to pass an
appropriate order in respect of compliance of the direction of this Court as
contained in its order dated 24.02.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in this appeal. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant that vide order dated 24.02.2021, co-ordinate Bench of
this Court allowed I.A. Nos.2685 of 2017, 2691 of 2017 and I.A. No.10475
of 2019 allowing the petition for substitution filed by the appellant after
setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay in filing the petition
for substitution subject to payment of cost of Rs.21,000/- by the appellant
to the respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from the date of that
order. It is next submitted that in compliance of the direction of this Court
passed in said order dated 24.02.2021 in this appeal, the appellant got a
demand draft in the name of the respondent No.1, the copy of which has
been kept at Annexure-1. The appellant contacted the respondent No.1
through his counsel and requested the respondent No.1 to receive the
demand draft but the counsel for the respondent No.1 on the instructions
of the respondent No.1 declined to accept the said demand draft. Hence, it
is submitted that the appellant be permitted to deposit the original
demand draft in the Registry of the Court.
3. Mr. Prashant Pallav- learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the respondent No.1 has instructed him not to receive the cost of
Rs.21,000/-. Hence, he did not receive the demand draft. It is further
submitted by Mr. Prashant Pallav that order dated 24.02.2021 has been
challenged by the respondents by filing S.L.P. No.20212-14 of 2022 in the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which notices have already been
issued to the appellants who are the respondents before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India.
4. Under such circumstances, this interlocutory application is disposed
of by directing the appellant to deposit Rs.21,000/- with the Registrar
General of this Court within two weeks from the date of this order and the
Registrar General of this Court is directed to release the same in favour of
the respondent No.1 if and when she approaches the Registrar General
with a request for the same or else the Registrar General will deal with the
said money as will be ordered by the concerned court at the time of the
conclusion of the appeal.
5. This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
F.A. No.98 of 2003
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the valuation
of this appeal is Rs.3,97,405/- and the valuation of the suit out of which
this appeal has horizon is Rs. 4,80,000/- as mentioned in the appeal memo
itself. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel that in view of The
Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Jharkhand Amendment
Act, 2018), the District Judge/Principal District Judge/Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi has been vested with the jurisdiction to entertain
the appeal of value less than Rs.25,00,000/-from the decree or order
passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division).
2. It is then submitted that since, this appeal is an appeal from the suit
of value less than Rs.25,00,000/-Passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), the appeal be remitted to the court of Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi, for disposal in accordance with law. It is further submitted by the
learned senior counsel that I.A. No.10417 of 2022 has been filed with a
prayer to stay the further proceeding of Execution Case No.59 of 2017
pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.VII, Ranchi and
the prayer made in the said interlocutory application needs immediate
consideration. Hence, it is submitted that the Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi be directed to take up the said interlocutory application
immediately after receiving of the record by it.
3. Mr. Prashant Pallav- learned counsel for the respondents on the
other hand submits that this appeal was disposed of on merit by judgment
dated 12.04.2012 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order
dated 07.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No.2283 of 2017, after coming to know
the fact that during the pendency of the F.A. No.98 of 2003 before this
Court, the defendant-tenant died but this Court without being intimated
about the death of the defendant-tenant, passed the said appeal, without
substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. It is
then submitted that has this court been aware about the death of the
defendant-tenant during the pendency of the appeal, it could not have
passed any order on the merits of the appeal and as such the judgment of
the said F.A. No.98 of 2003 dated 20.04.2012 has been set aside and liberty
was given to the respondents to file the appropriate application in
accordance with law for setting aside the abatement, substitution and for
condonation of delay before the High Court and to pursue the appeal
deem to be pending before it. Consequent upon the order dated 07.02.2017
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2283 of
2017, the appellants filed petition for substitution, setting aside the
abatement and condoning the delay and the same has been allowed by co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, subject to payment of cost of Rs.21,000/- by
the appellant to the respondents but as the respondents have challenged
the said order in S.L.P. No.20212-14 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, hence, the respondent No.1 refused to accept the said cost
and this Court vide order dated 07.12.2022 in I.A. No.2052 of 2021 has
directed the appellant to deposit the cost with the Registrar General of this
Court within two weeks from the date of this order. Hence, it is submitted
that this appeal be not remitted to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi
which is a post equivalent to Principal District Judge and be heard by this
Court.
4. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this
Court has been vested with the jurisdiction to entertain Civil Appeals
under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as per the provisions of
the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 according to which the
appeals from decree and order of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall lie
to this Court if the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding
arising out of which the decree or order was made is less than
Rs.25,00,000/- or more in any other case. It is pertinent to refer Section 21
of The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act, 1887 which reads as
under:-
21. Appeals from Subordinate Judges and Munsifs.- (1) Save as
aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie-
(a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which or in
any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made was less than
twenty five lakh rupees, and
(b) to the High Court in any other case.
Provided that the High Court may at any time decide/ direct that any
Appeal or class or group of Appeals filed before it at any time, shall be transferred
to District Judge or Additional District Judge, and on such decision being taken
or order being passed by the High Court, such Appeal or class or group of
Appeals shall so stand transferred to such a transferee court which shall hear and
dispose of such an Appeal or class or group of Appeals, as if, the same had been
filed before it under clause (a).
(2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Munsif shall lie
to the District Judge.
(3) Where the function of receiving any appeals which lie to the District
Judge under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has been assigned to an Additional
Judge, the appeals may be preferred to the Additional Judge.
(4) The High Court may, with the previous sanction of the [State]
Government, direct by notification in the official Gazette, that appeals lying to the
District Judge under sub-section (2) from all or any of the decrees or orders of any
Munsif shall be preferred to the Court of such Subordinate Judge as may be
mentioned in the notification, and the appeals shall thereupon be preferred
accordingly.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Mrs. Justice
Poonam Srivastav who passed the judgment dated 20.04.2012, has since
been superannuated. The said judgment dated 20.04.2012 has been set
aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated
07.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No.2283 of 2017. Since the judgment has been
set aside, a fresh judgment in the appeal is required to be passed without
being prejudiced by findings in that judgment dated 20.04.2012. Since the
valuation of the suit is Rs.4,80,000/-, hence, as per Section 21 of The
Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the appeal from the
impugned judgment and decree shall lie before the District
Judge/Principal District Judge/Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.
6. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to remit this appeal
to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi to hear and dispose of the same in
accordance with law.
7. Since, this appeal is years old appeal, the Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law
expeditiously preferably within six months and as it is submitted that
there is urgency in I.A. No.10417 of 2022, the Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi is directed to consider the same as well, as early as possible.
Animesh/ (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
