Sandeep S/O Dinkarrao Soley v. Sharadkumar S/O Kunjilal Tiwari

2025:BHC-NAG:5155 1 902 339.95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 339/1995 (Sandeep s/o Dinkarrao Soley Vs. Sharadkumar s/o Kunjilal Tiwar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Aniket Rangari, Advocate h/f Amol Mardikar, Advocate appellant.

Mr. Digvijay G. Thakwale, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATED : 09/05/2025.

Heard.

2.

Mr. Digvijay G. Thakwale, learned counsel seeks permission to file Vakalatnma on behalf of respondent. 3.

Permission granted.

4.

Vide order dated 13.08.1996, the present second appeal came to be admitted on the substantial question of law pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction of learned First Appellate Court. The First Appeal arose out of a suit for specific performance of contract. The monetary evaluation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court Fees was more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, instead of granting a decree for specific performance of contract, learned Trial Court had passed a decree for refund of amount of Rs. 45,000/- which is the part of sale consideration received by the defendant from the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of sale between the parties. At the relevant time,

2 902 339.95 pecuniary jurisdiction of learned District Judge was upto Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appeal was therefore, filed before the District Court.

5.

In the present second appeal, a submission was made that the appellate jurisdiction of a Court depends upon the original valuation of the suit and not on the amount for which the decree is passed. Section 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869 ("Act of 1869") provides that a District Court shall be the Court of appeal from all decrees and orders passed by the Subordinate Courts subject to exceptions provided under Sections 16, 17 and 26 of the Act of 1869. Section 16 provides for appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge against decrees or orders passed by learned Additional District Judge. Section 17 provides for appellate jurisdiction of an Additional District Judge. Section 26 of the Act of 1869 deals with pecuniary aspect of jurisdiction.

Section 26 provides that in all suits decided by a Civil Judge of which the amount or value of the subject matter exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/- (at the relevant time), the appeal from such decision shall lie directly to the High Court. Thus, it is the valuation of subject matter of the dispute before the Civil Court will determine the appellate jurisdiction and not the value of decree passed in the civil suit.

6.

It also needs to be mentioned under the scheme of the Act of 1869 as it is apparent from Sections 8 and 26, the ordinary Court of appeal against a decree passed by the Civil

3 902 339.95 Court is the District Judge. Appellate jurisdiction to High Court is provided by way of exception, on the ground of pecuniary evaluation of suit.

7.

Since the value of the subject matter of the civil suit was more than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the first appeal would lie before the High Court. However, the appeal was filed and is decided by learned District Judge.

8.

It is apparent from the record that objection pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Judge was not raised during the course of hearing. This objection is raised for the first time in the present second appeal. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") which provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied in appeal on account of any error or defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case. It is also necessary to refer to Section 21(2) of the CPC which provides that objection with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be raised for the first time before the Appellate Court, if it is not so raised before learned Trial Court.

4 902 339.95 no prejudice on account of want of pecuniary jurisdiction is pointed out.

9.

It is also well settled that objection pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction does not go to the root of the matter. Pecuniary jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction etc. are procedural aspects of jurisdiction of a Court and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, having regard to the mandate of Section 99 of the CPC, it will not be just and proper to reverse the decree passed by learned First Appellate Court only on account of want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

10.

The second appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

( ROHIT W. JOSHI , J.) Gohane