Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s interference with an eviction decree on pecuniary-jurisdiction grounds. The 2015 Uttar Pradesh amendment did require qualifying pending small-causes suits to move to the Civil Judge’s court. Nevertheless, the tenant had not objected before the Additional District Judge and showed no consequent failure of justice. Section 21(2) CPC therefore barred raising that objection in revision. The appeals were allowed, with parties bearing their own costs.
Issues
- Whether the increased pecuniary limit governed pending small-causes suits.
- Whether an unraised pecuniary-jurisdiction objection justified reversal in revision without failure of justice.
Provisions considered
- Section 15(2) and proviso; Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, section 4, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as amended in Uttar PradeshThe increased one-lakh-rupee threshold for the relevant landlord-tenant suits governed cognizance, hearing and decision, including pending suits; it was not restricted to new institution. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47)
- Section 21(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A pecuniary-jurisdiction objection in appeal or revision required timely objection below and consequent failure of justice. Neither was established here, so the decree could not be displaced on that ground. (¶¶ 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62)
Held
- The statutory distribution assigned the relevant small-causes suits up to the increased threshold to the Civil Judge’s court. The Additional District Judge’s generally unlimited pecuniary authority did not override that distribution; qualifying pending suits should have been transferred. (¶¶ 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 47)
- Cognizance included institution, hearing and decision. The reference to institution in the statement of objects could not narrow the operative statutory language. A contrary single-judge view should have been referred to a larger Bench rather than creating conflicting precedent. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
- Pecuniary and territorial objections differed from absence of inherent subject-matter jurisdiction. Section 21 prevented retrial on a belated technical objection without established failure of justice. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57)
- The tenant participated without objecting to the Additional District Judge’s competence and did not show consequent failure of justice. The High Court erred in allowing that objection in revision despite the change in pecuniary allocation. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62)
- The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgment dated 7 December 2016 set aside. Parties were to bear their own costs. (¶ 63)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment dated 7 December 2016 set aside. Section 21(2) CPC barred interference on the unraised pecuniary-jurisdiction objection without consequent failure of justice. Parties to bear their own costs.