Om Prakash Agarwal Since Deceased Thr ... vs Vishan Dayal Rajpoot on 12 October, 2018

Here is a summary of the judgment:

1. Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby setting aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 07.12.2016. The Additional District Judge's decree of eviction, rent, and compensation was upheld.

2. Core Issue
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
* Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, which increased the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Rs. 1 lakh for small cause eviction suits, retrospectively divested the Additional District Judge of jurisdiction over such pending suits of lower valuation (specifically, Rs. 27,775/-).
* Whether the tenant, having not raised an objection to the Additional District Judge's pecuniary jurisdiction at the trial stage, was precluded from raising it in a revision application before the High Court, as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Key Facts
* The appellant (landlord) filed a Judge Small Causes Suit for eviction, rent, and damages in 2008, initially valued at Rs. 21,175/-, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Small Cause Court, Firozabad.
* The valuation was later amended to Rs. 27,775/-.
* Due to the increased valuation (exceeding Rs. 25,000/-, the then pecuniary limit for Civil Judge), the District Judge transferred the suit to the Additional District Judge, where it was re-registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2010.
* On 07.12.2015, the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, came into effect, raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge, Small Cause Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division) for eviction suits from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh.
* The Additional District Judge continued to hear and decided the suit on 22.10.2016, decreeing it in favor of the landlord.
* The respondent (tenant) filed a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, before the Allahabad High Court, contending that the Additional District Judge had lost jurisdiction over the suit after the 2015 amendment. This objection was not raised before the Additional District Judge.
* The High Court, relying on its earlier judgment in Shobhit Nigam v. Smt. Batulan and another (2016), allowed the revision, holding that the Additional District Judge's order was without jurisdiction, and remanded the suit for fresh decision by the Civil Judge (Senior Division).

4. Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)
* Appellant (Landlord):
* The 2015 Amendment Act was prospective, only affecting the "institution" of fresh suits, not pending cases.
* The Act contained no provision for transferring pending cases from the District Judge's court due to the amendment.
* The tenant did not object to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge at the trial stage; therefore, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, precluded them from raising such an objection in revision. Furthermore, there was no "consequent failure of justice."
* Respondent (Tenant):
* The 2015 Amendment Act uses the term "cognizance," which implies that after the amendment, the Additional District Judge ceased to have the power to "try and determine" (cognize) suits valued up to Rs. 1 lakh.
* The High Court correctly relied on Shobhit Nigam's case, which held that suits valued between Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh should be heard by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) after the amendment.
* Contrasted Shobhit Nigam with Pankaj Hotel v. Bal Mukund, but ultimately supported the former.
* Section 21 CPC was not applicable as the lack of jurisdiction rendered the judgment a nullity.

5. Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court addressed both aspects of the core issue:

• On the effect of the 2015 Amendment on Jurisdiction:

  • The Court held that the legislative scheme, read with Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, establishes a "clear dichotomy" for small cause suits: those up to Rs. 1 lakh are to be cognized by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), and those above Rs. 1 lakh by the District/Additional District Judge.
  • The term "cognizance" in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is broad, encompassing the institution, hearing, and decision of a case.
  • The Court found that the "Statement of Objects and Reasons" of the 2015 Act (referring to "institution") could not override the plain and unambiguous language of Section 15, which uses "cognizable."
  • Therefore, after the 2015 amendment came into effect (07.12.2015), the Additional District Judge was not competent to take cognizance of or decide the suit, as its valuation of Rs. 27,775/- fell within the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). The Court thus approved the High Court's view in Shobhit Nigam on this point and disapproved the contrary view in Pankaj Hotel.

• On the applicability of Section 21 CPC:

  • The Court emphasized that Section 21(2) of the CPC specifically deals with objections to pecuniary jurisdiction. This section embodies a legislative policy to prevent reversal of judgments on technical grounds unless the objection was taken at the earliest opportunity and resulted in a "consequent failure of justice."
  • The tenant did not raise any objection regarding the Additional District Judge's pecuniary competence during the trial proceedings.
  • Having failed to raise the objection at the earliest opportunity and not demonstrating any "consequent failure of justice," the tenant was precluded by Section 21 CPC from raising it in revision.
  • The High Court erred by not considering Section 21 CPC in its decision, and previous High Court judgments (Shobhit Nigam and Tejumal v. Mohd. Sarfraz) that overlooked this provision were incorrect.
  • The Court reiterated that objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction are treated as technical and do not render a judgment a nullity unless a failure of justice is proven, distinguishing them from a complete lack of inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter.

6. Statutory References
* The Bengal, Agra, and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Sections 3, 4, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25)
* The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Sections 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 25, Second Schedule Article 4)
* Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Sections 15, 21, 99, Order L)
* Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972)
* Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (U.P. Act of 2015)
* Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act XIII of 1972)
* Suit Valuation Act, 1887 (Section 11)

7. Precedents Cited
* Shobhit Nigam Vs. Smt. Batulan and another (SCC Revision No.278 of 2016, Allahabad High Court)
* Pankaj Hotel Vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ 2017 (Allahabad High Court)
* Sanjay Sharma alias Pintu vs. Anil Dua alias Titu (SCC Revision defective No. 76 of 2017, Allahabad High Court)
* M.P. Mishra Vs. Sangam Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975 Allahabad 425
* Mt. Sukha v. Raghunath (AIR 1917 All. 62)
* D. D. Vidyarthi v. Ram Pearey Lal (AIR 1935 All 690)
* Badal Chandra v. Srikrishna Dey (AIR 1929 Cal 354)
* Bhagwan Das v. Keshwar Lal (AIR 1923 Pat 49)
* Narayan Sitaram v. Bhagu [(1907) ILR 31 Bom 314)]
* Raja Soap Factory v. S. P. Shantharaj [AIR (1965) SC 1449]
* Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340
* Hiralal vs. Kalinath, AIR (1962) SC 199
* Bahrain Petroleum Co. vs. P.J.Pappu and Another, AIR 1963 SC 634
* R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 130
* Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791
* Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, (2007) 13 SCC 650
* State of Himachal Pradesh vs. M.P.Gupta, (2004) 2 SCC 349
* S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522
* Subha Ram vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 506
* Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, (2003) 1 SCC 692
* Tejumal vs. Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392 (Allahabad High Court)