Madras High Court
Jayalakshmi vs C.Balu (Died) on 1 July, 2022
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :01.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.21341 of 2019
1.Jayalakshmi
W/o Karuppannan
2.Saratha
W/o Sengottaian
3.Sulochana
W/o Ramasamy ... Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 3
Vs.
1.C.Balu (Died)
2.B.Naveen Kumar
S/o C.Balu
3.Suriyagandhi
W/o Late C.Balu
4.Subha
W/o Jambulingam
(RR3 & 4 brought on record as LR's
of the deceased R1 vide Court order
of this Court dated 21.06.2022 in C.M.P.No.99 of 2020)
… Respondents/Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the Docket Order dated 20.08.2019 passed in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
I.A.No.430 of 2017 in O.S.No.91 of 2014 on the file of the Sub-Court,
Perundurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao
For Respondents : R1 – Died
RR2 to 4 – No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Docket Order dated
20.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.430 of 2017 in O.S.No.91 of 2014 on the file of the
Sub-Court, Perundurai.
2.The case of the revision petitioners are that the suit was filed by the
respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the
petitioners filed a petition in I.A.No.430 of 2017, to try the issues of pecuniary
jurisdiction and valuation of court fee as preliminary issues. After hearing both
sides, while dismissing the Interlocutory Application, the Trial Court has
observed that though the said petition was filed after commencement of witnesses
examination, the question of jurisdiction as well as the valuation of the suit would
be decided as an issues in the suit, and the same would be decided at the time of
Trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court, to the
decision of this Court held in C.R.P. (PD) No.4336 of 2018 dated 20.09.2019,
wherein it has been held as follows:-
“13.Assuming that, at the time of pronouncement of
judgment, if ultimately the trial Court comes to a conclusion
that the objection on pecuniary jurisdiction raised by the
defendants are sustainable and acceptable, then the whole
process of trying the case would become otiose, as no decree
could be passed by the trial Court, without having pecuniary
jurisdiction. That is the reason why, whenever the issue is
raised on jurisdiction aspect, the same shall be decided at the
threshold ie., immediately after raising the same, on merits
and in accordance with law and the same cannot be deferred
for decision along with other issues at the time of final
judgment and decree in the suit.
14. Here, in the case on hand, whether the objection
raised by the defendants through the memo dated 21.08.2018
is sustainable or not, is a matter of decision to be made by
the trial Court, of course in accordance with law. However,
the trial Court shall not defer the decision till the disposal of
the suit, as that has not been intended by the legislation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
that is the reason why even under Section 21 of C.P.C., it has
been specifically mentioned that, the issue, with regard to the
jurisdiction, should be raised at the Court of first instance
and that too at the earliest possible opportunity.
15. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that, the issue raised by the defendants / revision
petitioners, of course through the memo dated 21.08.2018,
shall be decided first, as a preliminary issue, before
proceeding further in the suit, in accordance with law.”
4.Following the above decision, this Court is of the opinion that, the issue
raised by the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3, in an Interlocutory Application, shall
be decided first, as a preliminary issue, before proceeding further in the suit, in
accordance with law.
5.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. Thus, the
impugned order dated 20.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.430 of 2017 in O.S.No.91 of
2014 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court, with a
direction to decide the objection raised by the petitioners/defendants, on the basis
of want of pecuniary jurisdiction and valuation of court fee by the Court below,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
on merits and in accordance with law, as preliminary issue, of course after hearing
both sides, by giving them an opportunity, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Only after making a decision as indicated
above, the Trial Court shall proceed to try the Suit. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.07.2022
Jer
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
J.NISHA BANU,J.
Jer
C.R.P. (PD) No.3288 of 2019
01.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
