Appeals against an order returning civil suits to District Court despite valuation increase. The Court invoked suo motu powers under Section 24 CPC to withdraw suits from District Court to the High Court for proceedings.
Impugned orders set aside; suits withdrawn to High Court under Section 24 CPC; listed for further proceedings on 19.01.2017.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3 & 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 02.01.2017
FAO(OS) 383/2016
U.N. BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant
versus
Y.N. BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Respondents
AND
FAO(OS) 384/2016
U.N. BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant versus Y.N. BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Anunaya Mehta For the Respondent Nos.2,3,4&5 : Mr B.S. Mann with Mr Vishal Maan Respondent no.1 : Mr Y.N. Bhardwaj (in person)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
J U D G M E N T
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 48148/2016 in FAO(OS) 383/2016 CM 48195/2016 in FAO(OS) 384/2016
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 383/2016&384/2016
Page 1 of 7
FAO(OS) 383/2016 & CM 48149/2016 FAO(OS) 384/2016 & CM 48196/2016
civil suits which have been consolidated for the purposes of recording of evidence by virtue of an order dated 28.02.2011. The suits were originally filed in 2005 and numbered as CS(OS) 641/2005 and CS(OS) 642/2005. Originally the suits were valued at Rs. 1 crore each for the purposes of jurisdiction. Because of the increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court and the lower limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the original side of this court being raised to Rs. 2 crore, the said suits were transferred to the District Court at Saket and they were re-numbered as CS15/2015 and CS16/2015. In the meanwhile, applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in the two suits had already been filed before this court. Those applications came up for hearing before the District and Sessions Judge (South) at Saket, New Delhi, and the same were disposed of by the order dated 04.10.2016 whereby the amendment applications were allowed increasing the valuation of the suit to Rs. 10 crore each. Consequently, upon the applications being allowed, it became apparent to the District Court that it would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suits. As a result, it was directed by the Order dated 04.10.2016 that as the suits were now valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10 crore and were beyond the pecuniary
FAO(OS) 383/2016&384/2016
Page 2 of 7
jurisdiction of the District Court, the same be placed before the High Court for further direction and the date of 17.10.2016 was fixed for the appearance of the parties.
was contended that in similar circumstances in these decisions the learned Single Judges had exercised powers under Section 24 CPC and had withdrawn the suits from the District Court to be tried by the original side of this court. Despite the said decisions having been placed before the learned Single Judge, by virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed that the case files be returned to the District Court from where they
had been received but gave liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application in the meanwhile under Section 24 CPC. According to the
FAO(OS) 383/2016&384/2016
Page 3 of 7
learned counsel for the appellant this is contrary to the view taken by the learned Single Judges in the above mentioned cases and would cause unnecessary delay in the suit proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondents in CS(OS) 641/2005 are all present. They have no difficulty with the ratio of the decisions in Ziff-Davis Inc. (supra) and Hawkins Cookers Limited (supra) being applied to this case also. There are some other respondents in CS(OS) 642/2005 who are not before us but we see no impediment in disposing of the present appeals in their absence. This is so because the power under Section 24 CPC can be exercised suo motu without notice to the parties. Section 24 CPC reads as under:-
“24. General Power of transfer and withdrawal .- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-
FAO(OS) 383/2016&384/2016
Page 4 of 7
(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.
(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.
(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.”
FAO(OS) 383/2016&384/2016
Page 5 of 7
these case files before the High Court for exercising its power under Section
24 of the CPC.
court had observed as under:-
“9. The orders passed by the District Judge thus, in may considered view, must be read as orders to place the matters back before the High Court which again acquires jurisdiction in view of the amendment made by the plaintiff to the plaint. It is at this stage, when such a date is fixed for the parties to appear before the High Court, the High Court when it proceeds with the matter can exercise powers under Section 24 of the Code and thus proceed with the matter from the stage which the matter had reached by that date. This reasoning is also supported by the fact that even the trial Court was required to continue the proceedings from the stage it had reached in the High Court by reason of transfer of the matter to the trial Court and the High Court again starts the matter from where it had left or in addition some steps have been taken by the trial Court.
(underlining added)
Single Judge of this Court was as under:-
“6. I find it impossible to accept the argument that the filing of a Suit in a competent Court must be rendered void and nugatory only because of procedural changes made by the High Court.
FAO(OS) 383/2016&384/2016
Page 6 of 7
In several cases where Suits have been transferred from the High Court to the District Court the plaintiffs have, after succeeding in an upward revision of the valuation of the Suit, approached the Court under Section 24 of the CPC. This Section contemplates the filing of an application by the parties desirous of a transfer, or of its own motion. The Orders of the District Judge are merely to the effect that the file should be sent or transmitted to this Court. It is, therefore, for the High Court to decide what action has to be adopted. To set all controversies at rest, I assume jurisdiction under Section 24 and hold and direct that the Suit stands transferred to this Court by Orders of this Court itself.”
(underlining added)
views taken by the learned Single Judges in the above two cases.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
JANUARY 02, 2017 kb
FAO(OS) 383/2016&384/2016
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise suo motu power under Section 24 CPC to withdraw suits from District Court due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction.
Whether the impugned order directing return of files to District Court without exercising transfer power was correct.
Whether the suits valued at Rs. 10 crore should be tried by the High Court after withdrawal under Section 24.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ziff-Davis Inc. v. Dr. J.K. Jain & Ors.Applied¶30
Ziff-Davis Inc. v. Dr. J.K. Jain & Ors.: 2006(32) PTC 86 (Del)
Hawkins Cookers Limited v. Citizen Metal Industries (India)Applied¶30
Hawkins Cookers Limited v. Citizen Metal Industries (India): 2006(33) PTC 387 (Del)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
U.N. BHARDWAJ
Y.N. BHARDWAJ
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
