Kartar Singh and Others vs Pritam Singh and Others

Mehar Singh, J.—In this second appeal there is only a short question for decision whether the decree in question is or is not a nullity.

The decree-holders, who are Appellants in this Court, obtained a decree for Rs. 450/- from the Court of Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri on 30-3-1953, against the judgment-debtors, who are Respondents. There is Adalat Class I at Dhuri, which is a Panchayat Court and according to Section 79(1) (j)(i) of the Pepsu Panchayat Raj Act 2008 Bk., it is the Adalat Class I that entertains civil suits of which the valuation does not exceed Rs. 500/-.

Apparently the Adalat Class I at Dhuri had pecuniary jurisdiction in the suit under those provisions, but to make the decree a nullity on the ground that the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try it, it is necessary that the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts in suits triable by Panchayat Courts should have been excluded, for if both the Courts'' have concurrent jurisdiction, the decree passed by one of them will not be without jurisdiction and a nullity.

The decree-holders made the execution application on 20-4-1954. A notice of the application was given to the judgment-debtors who in their reply, dated 12-5-1954, stated that they had no other means of satisfying the decree, and that the decretal amount be charged1 upon their house. The house of the judgment-debtors was attached and when it was being put to sale, the judgment-debtors on 3-6-ly54, came forward with an objection that the decree having been passed by a Court which had no pecuniary jurisdiction in the suit Was a nullity and thus the execution case should be dismissed.

Their case was that Adalat Class I at Dhuri alone had jurisdiction in the suit of the value below Rs. 500/- and the suit was not instituted in that Court but in the Court of Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri which had no jurisdiction to entertain it and consequently to pass a decree in it. The decree-holders contested this objection on the part of the judgment-debtOrs.

The executing Court, as also the first appellate Court, have come to the conclusions (a) that the Adalat Class I at Dhuri alone had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class was barred, and (b) that, consequently, the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class being without jurisdiction is a nullity. On these conclusions they have concurred in dismissing the execution application of the decree-holders.

The learned Counsel for decree-holders contends (a) that having regard to Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, even if the decree is by a Court not having pecuniary jurisdiction it is not a nullity because the disposal of the suit on merits has not been prejudicially affected, and (b) that, in .any case, the judgment-debtors not having raised any question about jurisdiction at the trial of the suit and having accepted the forum for that purpose cannot be heard to complain that the decree ''is passed by a Court without jurisdiction.

The first ground taken by the learned Counsel has no substance in it because Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act concerns cases "of the overvaluation or under-valuation" of suits, and it does not relate to a case in which the valuation is correctly stated. It is an admitted fact that in the present case the decree-holders in the original suit stated the valuation of the suit correctly. They did not either under-value it or over-value it. So that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act has no application to the facts of this case in which the valuation was correctly stated and there was neither overvaluation nor under-valuation for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction.

The second ground put forth by the learned Counsel is equally untenable because if the Court of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri had no jurisdiction to try the suit, then consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction, which is an admitted proposition, and equally the conduct of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction either. So that if the judgment-debtors failed to raise objection as to jurisdiction at the trial or at the time of the first execution application and even agreed that the decretal amount be charged upon their house, that cannot make what is a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction, a decree passed by a Court with jurisdiction.

However, the main question remains whether the decree in this case is or is not without Jurisdiction and thus a nullity? There is no specific provision in the Pepsu Panchayat Raj Act, 2008 Bk" which excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary civil Courts in suits that are triable by Panchayat Courts under, the provisions of that Act. The learned District Judge in reaching the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts in such suits is excluded has referred to Sections 62, 81 and 96 of the said Act.

Section 62 merely says that every suit shall be instituted before the Niyaye Pardhan or in his absence before the Mit Niyaye Pardhan of the Adalat of the circle concerned and this is notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment. This provision only indicates the person, before whom suits are to be instituted and no conclusion is available from the words of the section that the jurisdiction of ordinary civil Courts in such suits is excluded.

Section 81 merely provides that all suits triable by Adalats that is, Panchayat Courts, shall be transferred by the other Courts to the Adalats concerned. I do not see how inference is available from this provision that the jurisdiction of ordinary civil Courts is excluded for the trial of suits within the jurisdiction of such Adalats, because the Act says nothing if an ordinary civil Court does not transfer such a case.

Section 96 says that the provisions of the Coda of Civil Procedure, 1908, and of the Evidence Act, 1872, shall not apply to proceedings before Adalats, save to the extent mentioned in the Act or as may be prescribed. Again I do not see how this section excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary civil Courts in connection with the trial of a suit within the jurisdiction of a Panchayat Court, for it is open to the Legislature to provide different rules of procedure and evidence for the trial and decision of same types of suits, though this may seem to be anomalous. Section 93 says:

93 (1) If at any time it appears to an Adalat

(a) that it has no jurisdiction to try any suit before it; or

(b) that a suit is of such a nature or of such complexity that it should not be tried by it; it shall send the case with its report to the District Judge in case of a civil suit and to the Collector in case of a revenue suit.

On receipt of a case under Sub-section (1), the District Judge or the Collector, as the case may be, shall transfer the same for trial to any com, petent court.

It is clear from Sub-sections. 1(b) and (2) of this section that where the Adalat finds a suit toe complicated for it to try, it can be transferred to an ordinary civil court of competent jurisdiction This provision indicates that the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts in such suits is not excluded or barred. An argument, which has been repeated here, has found favour with the Courts low that if the jurisdiction of ordinary civil court; in such suits is not excluded, litigants will always" ignore Panchayat Adalats and come before ordinary civil courts, but this, in my opinion, is no- ground for importing a provision in the Act which does not find place in it.

It appears to me on consideration of the provisions of the Act that although the Panchayat Courts have been given jurisdiction in certain suits by the Pepsu Panchayat Raj Act, 2008 Bit., the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in such suits has not been excluded or taken away,; the result of which is that both courts have concurrent jurisdiction in such suits. That being so, the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri could also try the suit of the decree-holders and pass decree and merely because the decree-holders have preferred his Court and not the Panchayat ''-Court that does not make the decree of the Subordinate judge 2nd Class at Dhuri a nullity on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

In the view taken above, this appeal succeeds, the orders of the Courts below are set aside, and the case is, returned to the executing Court for proceeding according to law. In the circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs.