Banarsi Dass and Others vs Ram Rakhi

Plaintiff-respondent''s application for permission to sue in forma pauperis under Order 33, Rule 1 of the CPC has been allowed by the trial Court which was presided over by a Subordinate Judge exercising powers of the Third Class. The defendant has filed this revision petition on the ground that the value of the suit was admittedly more than Rs. 5000/- and that the Subordinate Judge had, therefore, no pecuniary jurisdiction to pass the said order in the case.

The petitioner had put in appearance in the case on 25-10-1968 and had filed a written statement on 28-10-1968. Though a number of other preliminary objections had been taken, there was no objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. The reply to paragraph 9 of the plaint in which an averment about the Court''s jurisdiction had been made was that this paragraph was legal and that no reply was necessary. Issues about pauperism were framed on a later date and the parties had to be granted a number of adjournments for the examination of their witnesses on the question of plaintiff-respondent''s financial ability to pay the court-fee due. A notice had also been issued to the Collector under O. 33, R. 6 but he had not cared to send any report and no body had put in appearance on behalf of the State. After the evidence of the parties had been closed, arguments were heard and the pauper application was allowed on 1-7-1969. The suit was ordered to be registered and case was adjourned to 15-7-1969 for the filing of the written statement and framing of issues on merits.

Immediately after this order dated 1-7-1969 was recorded, it was represented to the presiding officer that the jurisdictional value of the suit was Rs. 7500/- and that the case was, therefore, beyond the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the presiding officer. The presiding Officer, therefore, sent the records of this case to the District Judge with a request that the case may be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction. The case has since been transferred to a Court presided over by a Subordinate Judge exercising powers of the Second Class.

The record shows that no objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court had been taken upto the stage that the plaintiff-respondent''s pauper application had been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent, Ch. Roop Chand, relies on Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887. According to this section an objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under-valuation of the suit the Court of first instance had no jurisdiction, cannot be entertained by an appellate Court unless the objection had been taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded or the appellate Court is satisfied that the over-valuation of the suit was prejudicially affected the disposal of the case on its merits. Even where the objection about jurisdiction is found to have been taken in the Court of first instance before the hearing at which issues are framed the appellate Court can, if the material necessary for the determination of the question is available on the record, dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect in the jurisdiction of the Court of first instance.

In Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, , the Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe as follows:-

"The principle that underlies Section 11, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, is that a decree passed by a Court, which would have had no jurisdiction to hear a suit or appeal but for over-valuation or under-valuation, is not to be treated as, what it would be but for the section null and void, and that on objection to jurisdiction based on over-valuation or under-valuation, should be dealt with under that section and not otherwise.

The same principle has been adopted in Section 21, Civil P. C., with reference to the objections relating to territorial jurisdiction. The policy under lying Section 21 and 99, Civil P. C. and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, is the same, namely that when a case had been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate Court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits."

The trial Court had allowed the pauper petition on the basis of evidence examined by both the parties with regard to the plaintiff-respondent''s capacity to pay the court-fee. No fault has been found with the assessment of this evidence and the material is available on record to suggest that the pauper application was allowed on sound principles and that no prejudice had been caused to any of the parties so far as the merits of the case are concerned.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed but there is no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.