The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that Civil Judges (Senior Division) can adjudicate cases valued up to ₹5 lakh, dismissing a challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court in a property dispute. Justice Subhash Chand held that changes in the pecuniary jurisdiction limits, introduced via legislative amendments, empower the court to proceed with such cases even if the valuation falls below ₹5 lakh.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around Lagni Mundain, the petitioner, who challenged an order dated July 25, 2024, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 647 of 2024. The underlying suit, initially registered as Original Suit No. 628 of 2015 and later renumbered as No. 388 of 2023, involved a property dispute. The plaintiffs, Ratan Kumari Surana and others, filed the suit valuing the property at ₹5 lakh.
The petitioner, a defendant in the case, argued that the valuation was grossly understated, claiming the actual value exceeded ₹50 lakh. She filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of undervaluation. The trial court, however, rejected this application.
Legal Issues
1. Jurisdictional Competence:
The petitioner contended that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, arguing that cases valued at or below ₹5 lakh should fall exclusively within the purview of the Court of Munsif.
2. Application of Amended Pecuniary Limits:
The petitioner questioned whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division) could continue to hear the case following the 2019 amendment to the Bengal, Agra, and Assam Civil Courts (Jharkhand Amendment) Act, 2018, which increased the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif Courts to ₹5 lakh.
3. Undervaluation of Suit Property:
The petitioner also alleged that the plaintiffs deliberately undervalued the property to fit within the trial court’s jurisdiction.
Observations and Decision of the High Court
Justice Subhash Chand dismissed the petitioner’s arguments, affirming the trial court’s jurisdiction and rejecting allegations of undervaluation. The Court highlighted the following points:
– Unlimited Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Civil Judges (Senior Division):
“The Civil Judge (Senior Division) has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction and is fully competent to adjudicate suits of lesser value,” the Court stated.
– Appropriate Forum:
The Court held that the issue of undervaluation should be determined during the trial, not as a preliminary objection. “Whether the suit is undervalued can only be decided after framing appropriate issues,” the judgment noted.
– No Procedural Violation:
The Court emphasized that the trial court’s decision to proceed with the matter was legally sound. “The trial court bears no infirmity or illegality in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC,” Justice Chand observed.
– Relevance of Amendment:
The Court clarified that amendments enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif Courts do not divest Civil Judges (Senior Division) of their authority to hear cases of lesser value.
Key Quotes from the Judgment
– “The jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) extends to suits of all values unless specifically barred by law.”
– “Framing issues is the correct procedural mechanism to address allegations of undervaluation, rather than rejecting the plaint at the preliminary stage.”
Representation and Parties
The petitioner, Lagni Mundain, was represented by Advocate Shashank Shekhar, while Advocates Rahul Kumar Gupta and Surya Prakash appeared for the respondents, including Ratan Kumari Surana and others.
