Revision petition dismissed. Court held that with enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the earlier appeal and cross-objections revived by prior orders must be decided by the Lower Appellate Court.
Revision petition dismissed; Lower Appellate Court directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
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.
C. R. No. 3698 of 2008 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 3698 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision : January 06, 2010
State of Punjab and another
.... Petitioners
Vs.
Rattan Chand and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the petitioners.
Mr. G. S. Bhatia, Advocate for respondents no. 219 and 220.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing order dated 05.04.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur.
The case has checkered history. Suit filed by the petitioners herein was decided by trial court vide judgment dated 25.11.2003. The petitioners filed appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 189 of 2003 in the court of learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. Respondents filed cross-objections in the said appeal. Respondents also moved application that the court of District Judge/Additional District Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal as jurisdictional value was more than Rs.5 lacs. Learned Lower Appellate Court, vide order dated 24.04.2006,
C. R. No. 3698 of 2008 (O&M)
2
upheld the said plea of the respondents and directed that the appeal as well as the cross-objections be returned to the parties for presentation before the proper court (this Court). However, respondents filed F. A. O. No. 2377 of 2006 against the said order. This Court, vide order dated 31.05.2006 passed in said FAO, stayed operation of order dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Lower Appellate Court. However, the petitioners, pursuant to order dated 24.04.2006 of the Lower Appellate Court, filed R. F. A. No. 2824 of 2006 in this Court. This Court, vide separate orders (both dated 19.10.2006), disposed of R. F. A. No. 2824 of 2006 as well as F. A. O. No. 2377 of 2006. The said orders have been reproduced at pages 16 to 18 of this revision petition in paragraphs 10 and 11 respectively. It was observed that pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of District Judge/Additional District Judge has been enhanced to an unlimited extent and therefore, first appeal can be entertained and decided by the court of District Judge/ Additional District Judge, even if value of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction is more than Rs.5 lacs. Consequently, in R. F. A. No. 2824 of 2006, it was ordered that the appeal is remitted to the court of District Judge, Gurdaspur, who may decide the appeal himself or may entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction. In F. A. O. No. 2377 of 2006, it was directed that the appeal preferred before District Judge/ Additional District Judge be sent back to the District Judge, Gurdaspur for deciding the appeal himself or entrusting the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction. F. A. O. No. 2377 of 2006 was dismissed as infructuous.
Now, the Lower Appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 05.04.2008, has observed that the situation returns to pre-24.04.2006 order stage and consequently, the appeal bearing C. A. No. 189 of 2003 filed before the District Judge and cross-objections filed therein are to be decided by the Lower Appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The petitioners have filed the instant revision petition contending that since R. F. A. No. 2824 of 2006 has been remitted by this Court to court of
C. R. No. 3698 of 2008 (O&M)
3
District Judge/Additional District Judge, earlier appeal bearing C. A. No. 189 of 2003 filed by the petitioners and the cross-objections filed therein by the respondents, cannot be entertained by the Lower Appellate Court and only R. F. A. No. 2824 of 2006, which was also remitted to District Judge/ Additional District Judge, has to be decided.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that because R. F. A. No.2824 of 2006 filed in this Court has since been remitted to the Lower Appellate Court for decision, earlier appeal filed by the petitioners before the Lower Appellate Court (bearing C. A. No. 189 of 2003) and the cross-objections filed therein by the respondents, cannot be entertained and decided by the Lower Appellate Court because the same had earlier been returned vide order dated 24.04.2006 for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that in view of order passed by this Court in F. A. O. No. 2377 of 2006, appeal preferred by the petitioners before District Judge bearing C. A. No. 189 of 2003 as well as the cross-objections filed therein by the respondents, stand revived and have to be decided by the Lower Appellate Court.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Since pecuniary jurisdiction of Lower Appellate Court has been enhanced to unlimited extent and vide specific order passed in F. A. O. No. 2377 of 2006, the appeal bearing C. A. No. 189 of 2003 was remitted to Lower Appellate Court for decision, the said appeal has to be decided by Lower Appellate Court along with cross-objections filed therein by the respondents. The respondents cannot be asked to file fresh cross-objections in R. F. A. No. 2824 of 2006, which has also been remitted to Lower Appellate Court for decision. Appeal bearing C. A. No. 189 of 2003 stands
C. R. No. 3698 of 2008 (O&M)
4
revived and has to be decided by the Lower Appellate Court, pursuant to order dated 19.10.2006 passed by this Court in F. A. O. No. 2377 of 2006. There is, thus, no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order Annexure P-4 passed by the Lower Appellate Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is dismissed. Since the appeal is of the year 2003, the Lower Appellate Court shall decide the same expeditiously.
Records of Lower Appellate Court be sent back at once.
January 06, 2010
monika
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an earlier appeal and cross-objections returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction must be revived and decided by the Lower Appellate Court after an order enhancing such jurisdiction.
Whether the instant revision petition challenging the Lower Appellate Court's order reviving the earlier appeal warrants interference under Article 227.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Punjab and another
Rattan Chand and others
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
