- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gopal Ram v. Mohan Ram and Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent Mohan Ram filed Original Suit No. 329 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh. The petitioner, Gopal Ram, raised a plea that the suit was undervalued and the court-fee paid was insufficient. The learned Munsif held the valuation at Rs. 25,000 and, lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Meanwhile, the State Government issued a notification on 17-11-1988 creating a new district, Mau, effective 19-11-1988, which included the property in dispute. The plaintiff then presented the plaint before the Civil Judge, Mau, where it was registered as Suit No. 60/91. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Mau, asserting it should be heard in Azamgarh. This objection was rejected by the Civil Judge, Mau, and the District Judge, Mau, in subsequent orders dated 11-5-1993 and 14-12-1993 respectively. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash these orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Civil Judge, Mau had jurisdiction to entertain the suit after the plaint was returned by the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh.
- Whether the presentation of the plaint before the Civil Judge, Mau constituted a fresh presentation or was a continuation of the original suit filed in Azamgarh.
- Whether the notification creating the new district of Mau affected the jurisdiction of courts with respect to the suit.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The suit was initially filed in the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh, and in light of the State Government notification, only the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh had jurisdiction.
- The Court of Civil Judge, Mau had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Respondent's Arguments
- The return of the plaint by the Munsif, Azamgarh and its subsequent presentation before the Civil Judge, Mau amounted to a fresh presentation.
- Accordingly, under the State Government notification, the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh no longer had jurisdiction, and the plaint was rightly presented before the Civil Judge, Mau.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hira Chand Succaram Gandhi v. G.I.P. Railway Co., AIR 1923 Bom 421 | Establishes that a second suit filed in a court of proper jurisdiction after dismissal in a court without jurisdiction is not a continuation of the first suit. | Applied to determine that the plaint presented in Mau was a fresh suit, not a continuation of the original suit filed in Azamgarh. |
| Bimla Prasad Mukherjee v. Lal Man, AIR 1926 Cal 355 | Supports the principle that a suit instituted in a court lacking jurisdiction cannot continue as the same suit in a different court. | Reinforced the court's view that the suit in Mau was a fresh institution. |
| Ram Kishun v. Ashirbad, AIR 1950 Pat 478 | Confirms the principle regarding fresh institution of suits after return of plaint due to lack of jurisdiction. | Used to affirm that the plaint in Mau was newly presented after return from Azamgarh. |
| Amar Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 313 | Held that a suit is deemed instituted in the proper court only when the plaint is presented there after being returned for want of jurisdiction. | Applied to conclude that the suit was instituted in Mau only upon presentation of the plaint there, post-return. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the effect of the State Government notification creating the new district of Mau and the legal import of returning a plaint for want of jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. The court noted that the notification explicitly stated that ongoing legal proceedings would not be affected. However, since the plaint was returned on 4-10-1990 and the new district was created on 19-11-1988, the suit was effectively re-instituted after the notification. Relying on established precedents, the court held that the presentation of the plaint before the Civil Judge, Mau, was a fresh institution of suit, not a continuation of the original suit filed in Azamgarh. Consequently, the court at Azamgarh had no jurisdiction, and the objection to jurisdiction raised by the petitioner was frivolous. The court thus upheld the orders of the lower courts rejecting the jurisdictional objection.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is dismissed.
The court held that the Civil Judge, Mau had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the plaint was freshly presented there after being returned by the Munsif, Azamgarh. The objection to jurisdiction was found to be without merit and was rightly rejected by the courts below. Costs of Rs. 500 were awarded to the respondents due to the vexatious nature of the objection and the delay caused in the proceedings. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms existing principles regarding jurisdiction and suit institution after return of plaint.
G.P. Mathur, J.-
The parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.
2. Mohan Ram respondent No. 1 filed Original Suit No. 329 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh. In the written statement filed by the petitioner Gopal Ram (defendant) a plea was raised that the suit have been under value and the court-fee paid was insufficient. The learned Munsif, Azamgarh, decided the issue on 8-11-1989 and held that the valuation of the property in dispute was Rs. 25,000. Since the learned Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide suits of the valuation of Rs. 25,000 he passed an order, dated 4-10-1990 directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The State Government, however, issue a notification, dated 17-11-1988 exercising power under Section 11 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and Section 21 of U.P. General Clauses Act creating a new district of Mau w.e.f. 19-11-1988. The Property in dispute fell within the territorial limits of newly created district Mau. Thereafter, the plaintiff Mohan Ram presented the plaint before the Civil Judge, Mau where it was registered as Suit No. 60/91. The defendant-Gopal Ram filed an objection before the Civil Judge, Mau, that he had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and same should have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh. This objection was repelled by the Civil Judge, Mau, vide order, dated 11-5-1993 and revision against the said order was also dismissed by the District Judge, Mau, on 14-12-1993. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid orders, dated 11-5-1993 and 14-12-1993.
3. Sri V.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the suit had been initially filed in the court of Munisff, Azamgarh, in view of the notification issued by the State Government on 17-11-1988, it was the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh alone which had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and the Court of Civil Judge, Mau had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Shri S.A. Ansari, learned counsel for the plaintiff has, however, submitted that presentation of plaint in the Court of Civil Judge, Mau, after its return by the Munsiff, Azamgarh, will, in law, amount to a fresh presentation of plaint and therefore, in terms of the notification issued by the State Government, the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and the plaint had rightly been presented in the Court of Civil Judge, Mau.
4. The relevant portion of the notification issued by the State Government on 17-11-1988 reads as follows :
"Nothing in this notification shall affect any legal proceeding already commenced or pending in any Court of law which has either to exercise jurisdiction in the said areas"
The question to be considered is that when a Court orders return of a plaint, on account of want of jurisdiction, and the plaint is thereafter presented to any Court is it a fresh presentation of plaint or not ? This question has been considered by several Courts while dealing with the question of limitation and it has been held that where a suit has been instituted in a Court having no jurisdiction and it is found necessary to raise a second suit in a Court of proper jurisdiction, the second suit cannot be regarded as a continuation of first even though the subject-matter and the parties to the suit are identical. See Hira Chand Succaram Gandhi v. G.I.P. Railway Co., AIR 1923 Bom 421 ; Bimla Prasad Mukherjee v. Lal Man, AIR 1926 Cal 355 and Ram Kishun v. Ashirbad, AIR 1950 Pat 478. This principle will equally apply to cases where a plaint is returned under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. and is represented in the proper Court. In Amar Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 313, it was held that when a plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court, the suit can be deemed to be instituted in the proper Court only when the plaint was presented in the Court. It is, therefore, clear that the presentation of the plaint before the Civil Judge, Mau, was not continuation of the suit which had been filed in the Court of Munsiff, Azamgarh. Since the order for return of the plaint itself was passed on 4-10-1990 and the plaint was presented afresh in the Court of Civil Judge, Mau subsequent thereto which was long after the State Government had issued notification on 17-11-1988 creating new district of Mau, it cannot be held that any legal proceeding had already commenced or were pending in any court at Azamgarh. Therefore, the Court at Azamgarh had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute and the plaint had rightly been presented before the Civil Judge, Mau. The objection raised by the petitioner (defendant) was clearly frivolous and the same had rightly been rejected by both the Courts below.
5. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The interim order is vacated. In view of the vexatious objection raised by the plaintiff, the proceedings in the suit have remained stayed for several years, thefore, I award Rs. 500 as costs to the contesting respondents.
Petition dismissed.
Alert