Telangana High Court

Lokashubhakar And Another vs Gajawada Sudarshan And Another on 2 September, 2024

Author: G. Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

        THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1135 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants -

plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the IX

Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, in returning the plaint.

2. Notices were served on respondent, but no appearance was

made for them.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

appellants, who were the plaintiffs, filed the suit for permanent

injunction regarding a passage admeasuring 12.00 x 90.00 feet

equivalent to 120 Sq.yards forming part of premises bearing Nos.1-

11-102 to 1-11-107 and 1-11-52, 53 in Sy.No.133/12 vide L.P

No.19/1984 situated at Station Road, Kamareddy Town with

specific boundaries and valued the suit notionally for the relief of

permanent injunction at Rs.15,10,000/- and paid a court fee of

Rs.17,526/- under Section 26(c) of A.P Court Fee and Suit

Valuation Act and filed the same before the IX Additional District

Judge, Kamareddy.

5. The said suit was numbered as O.S No.05 of 2019 and

temporary injunction order was also granted in I.A No.45 of 2019

dated 07.03.2019. At the stage of filing written statement, the

defendants filed a petition vide I.A No.237 of 2019 to reject the

plaint on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction stating the value of the

disputed passage consisting of 120 Sq.yards would come to

Rs.9,60,000/- @ Rs.8,000/- per Sq.yards and at the stage of counter

in the said I.A No.237 of 2019, the counsel for the plaintiffs filed a

memo to return the said suit as he intended to file the same in a

proper court, upon which the said court returned the said suit to the

plaintiffs vide docket order dated 05.08.2019 with a direction to

present in the proper court.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that after

return of the suit from the IX Additional District Judge,

Kamareddy, the same was presented before the Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy on 14.08.2019 and the said court also returned the

plaint on 01.11.2019 on the ground that the plaintiffs valued the

suit at Rs.15,10,000/- which was above the pecuniary jurisdiction

of the court to entertain the suit. Thereafter, it was once again

presented before the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy on

04.11.2019 and the same was returned again on 14.11.2019

observing that the amendment to Telangana Civil Courts Act came

into force with effect from 25.10.2019 raising the pecuniary

jurisdiction of Junior Civil Judges up to Rs.20,00,000/- and the

pecuniary jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judges up to Rs.50,00,000/-

and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District courts was raised to

more than Rs.50,00,000/- and as such, returned the suit for

presentation before the proper jurisdictional court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants - plaintiffs further

submitted that the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy

committed material irregularity in failing to see that the

amendment to the Telangana Civil Courts Act came into effect in

October, 2019 and the same was prospective in operation and

relied upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P at Amaravathi

in Sriramula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Sanaka Venkateswara Rao and

another1.

2020 (1) ALD 506(AP)

8. As seen from the facts of the case, the suit was filed for the

relief of perpetual injunction and it was notionally valued at

Rs.15,10,000/-. The suit was filed on 06.03.2019. The said suit

was numbered as O.S. No.05 of 2019, which would show that the

District Court accepted the pecuniary jurisdiction and also granted

an interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiffs. However, at

the request of the plaintiffs, basing on the memo filed by the

counsel for the plaintiffs, upon the objections raised by the

defendants on the point of jurisdiction, the suit was returned for

presentation before proper jurisdictional court on 05.08.2019. On

04.11.2019, the counsel for plaintiffs presented the suit before the

Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy. But, the same was not taken on

file and was returned as the suit was exceeding the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the court as it was notionally valued for

Rs.15,10,000/-. At the time of institution of the suit in the month

of March, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge

Courts was up to Rs.3,00,000/- and the Senior Civil Judge Court

was between Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- and the pecuniary

jurisdiction of District Judge was above Rs.10,00,000/-.

Meanwhile, an amendment to the Telangana Civil Courts Act came

into force with effect from 25.10.2019 raising the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judges up to Rs.20,00,000/-, Senior

Civil Judges up to Rs.50,00,000/- and the District Courts when the

value of the subject matter exceeds Rs.50,00,000/-.

9. The suit was once again presented before the District Court

on 04.11.2019 as the court of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy

had returned the suit for not having pecuniary jurisdiction. The

same was also returned by the District Court observing that due to

the amendment to the Telangana Civil Courts Act as the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the District Court was raised, hence, returned to

present before the proper jurisdictional court.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon the judgment

of the High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi in Sriramula Srinivasa

Rao Vs.Sanaka Venkateswara Rao and another (1 Supra),

wherein it was held that the date of institution of suit was the

determinative factor to entertain the suit, but not the date of

registration of plaint by Court or date of numbering of suit. The

Court held that:

"7. In this background of factual matrix, it is to be next noted that the suit was initially instituted, on 12.11.2018, in the Senior Civil Court, because, as on the date of such institution, the said Court is the proper Court having

pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the provisions of the amended Act related to pecuniary original jurisdiction of the subordinate Courts came into force on 15.11.2018. In view of the notification of the Government appointing '15.11.2018' as the date on which the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 [Act No.26 of 2018] shall come into force and as the amended provisions have no retrospective effect and as the suit was instituted in the Senior Civil Court even before the amended provisions of the Civil Courts Act came into force and as the date of institution is the determinative factor, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, the Senior Civil for Court, Mangalagiri, is the proper forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The view of this Court that the date of the institution of the suit is the relevant criterion draws support from the decision in Duggireddy Ramakrishna Reddy v. A.P. State Co-operative Societies, 2001 (4) ALT 270 (DB). The said decision was rendered referring to an earlier order, dated 14.2.2001, passed in CRP No.4749 of 2000, inter alia, stating that in the said order, dated 14.2.2001, it was held as follows :-

"The amendments to the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972, as amended under Act 29 of 1997 are prospective in nature and the amended provisions have no application to the suits instituted and pending on the file of the competent Courts of jurisdiction".

In Maddileti Alivelamma v. Saraswathamma, CRP No.4749 of 2000, reported in 2001 (2) ALD 605, while considering the effect of Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (as amended by Act 29 of 1997) it was observed that the amendment to the provisions as amended vide Act 29 of 1997 was prospective in nature and the amended suit provisions have no application to suits already instituted and

pending on the file of the competent Court of jurisdiction and the that the law as on the date of filing of the suit will govern until disposal of the suit. In the said decision, the decision in K. Hara Gopal and others v. K. Venkata Ratna Kumar and another, 1993 (1) ALT 482, was followed and it was held that the Senior Civil Judge in whose Court the suit was instituted was entitled to consider the suit de hors the amendment raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1.00 lakh. It was further held that the provisions of the Act as in force as on the date of the institution of the suit will apply in respect of such suits instituted until their final determination and that in the circumstances, the proceedings of the District Judge withdrawing and transferring the suit to the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge was set aside. Following the same decision, the Division Bench in Duggireddy Ramakrishna Reddy's case (supra), held that the Amendment Act 29 of 1997 had no application to the suits pending in the competent Courts and that the law as on the date of filing of the suit governs until the disposal of the suit. Further in Vallabhaneni Lakshmana Swamy and another v. Valluru Basavaiah and others, 2004 (5) ALD 807 (LB), a Full Bench of the erstwhile A.P. High Court while dealing with the Civil Court (Amendment) Act 30 of 1989 held that the Civil Court (Amendment) Act 30 of 1989 is applicable prospectively from 1.12.1989."

11. As seen from the above judgment, the issue is already

decided by the courts holding that the date of institution of the suit

is the relevant criteria to entertain the suit and that the amendments

to the Telangana Civil Courts Act are prospective in nature and the

amended provisions have no applications to the suits instituted or

pending on the file of the competent courts of jurisdiction and the

law as on the date of filing of the suit governs until the disposal of

the suit.

12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by

setting aside the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the IX

Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in returning the suit of the

appellants with a direction to the IX Additional District Judge,