the jurisdiction of Court of Additional District Judge in deciding Small Causes Suit on 22.10.2016.= when the court of Additional District Judge was not competent to decide the Small Causes Suit in question on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction is vested in Court of Small Causes i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015, no interference was called in the judgment of Additional District Judge in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code.------; R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. where it was held that in view of Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, objection as to the place of suing should be taken by the party concerned in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and the objection to this effect shall not be allowed by the Appellate or Revisional Court but relying on the judgment of this Court in Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan, learned Single Judge held that defect of jurisdiction whether pecuniary or territorial or to the subject matter cannot be cured and can be set up at any stage of the proceeding. 59. We are of the view that the above view of the learned Single Judge is neither in consonance with the judgment of this Court in Kiran Singh’s case nor with R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited (supra) which has been noted and referred to by learned Single Judge. Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislative policy which cannot be ignored or given a go­by by the litigants who challenges an unfavourable decision. 66 60. We thus of the view that the view of the learned Single Judge in Tejumal Vs. Mohd. Sarfraj does not lay down the correct law and cannot be approved.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9051­9052 OF 2018
(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4275­4276 of 2017)
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED
THR. LRS. & ORS.                        ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.         ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These   appeals   have   been   filed   by   the
appellant(landlord),   questioning   the   judgment   of
Allahabad   High   Court   in   Small   Causes   Court   Revision
filed by the respondents(tenant) challenging the decree
of   eviction   passed   by   Additional   District   Judge,
Firozabad.  The issue which has arisen in these appeals
pertains   to   the   jurisdiction   of   Court   of   Additional
District   Judge   in   deciding   Small   Causes   Suit   on
22.10.2016.
2
2.  The facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these
appeals are:­
The appellant, the landlord of premises in question
filed Judge Small Causes Suit No. 1 of 2008 in the
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Small Cause
Court,   Firozabad   praying   for   decree   of   eviction,
rent and damages.  By order dated 05.04.2010 passed
by District Judge, the suit was transferred to the
Court   of   District   Judge,   Firozabad   and   was
registered   as   S.C.C.   Suit   No.   1   of   2010.     The
pecuniary   jurisdiction   of   a   Judge,   Small   Cause
Court, which at the time of filing of the suit was
Rs.25,000/­   was   raised   from   Rs.25,000/­   to   Rs.   1
lakh   w.e.f.   07.12.2005   vide   Uttar   Pradesh   Civil
Laws   (Amendment)   Act,   2015.     The   Additional
District   Judge   to   whom   the   suit   was   transferred
earlier   on   the   ground   that   pecuniary   jurisdiction
of   the   suit   is   more   than   Rs.25,000/­   i.e.
Rs.27,775/­, proceeded to decide the suit vide its
judgment   and   order   dated   22.10.2016   and   the   suit
for   eviction,   rent   and   compensation   was   decreed.
3
Aggrieved   against   the   judgment   of   Addl.   District
Judge, revision under Section 25 of the Provincial
Small   Cause   Courts   Act,   1887   was   filed   by   the
tenant   (respondents   to   this   appeal).   One   of   the
grounds   taken   in   the   revision   was   that   after
enactment   of   Uttar   Pradesh   Civil   Laws   (Amendment)
Act,   2015,   the   Court   of   Additional   District   Judge
ceased   to   have   any   jurisdiction   to   try   the   suit
between   lessor   and   lessee   of   a   value   upto   Rs.   1
lakh.     The   assumption   subsequent   thereto   of   the
jurisdiction   by   the   Additional   District   Judge   is
without jurisdiction.
Some   other   grounds   were   also   taken   for
challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2016. The High
Court   vide   its   impugned   judgment   dated   07.12.2016
allowed   the   Small   Cause   Court   revision   taking   a
view that order passed by Additional District Judge
was   without   jurisdiction   in   view   of   Uttar  Pradesh
Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015,
after   which   date,   such   case   of   valuation   of
Rs.27,775/­ could have been decided by Civil Judge
4
(Senior   Division)   working   as   Judge   Small   Causes
Court.   The   High   Court   relied   on   the   earlier
judgment of High Court in  SCC Revision No. 278 of
2016 – Shobhit Nigam Vs. Smt. Batulan and another
decided on 29.08.2016. The High Court remanded back
the Revision for a fresh decision by Small Causes
Court   presided   over   by   a   Civil   Judge   (Senior
Division). The landlord aggrieved by said judgment
has come up in this appeal.
   
3.   Shri A.K. Singla, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant contended that High Court committed an
error in allowing the Revision.   It is submitted that
Uttar   Pradesh   Civil   Laws   (Amendment)   Act,   2015   w.e.f.
07.12.2015   has   only   enhanced   the   jurisdiction   for
institution of small causes suit, which amendment shall
have   no   effect   on   the   pending   cases.     In   the   Uttar
Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, there was no
stipulation   that   pending   cases   of   having   valuation   of
more than Rs.25,000/­ before the Court of District Judge
should be transferred. He submits that no objection to
the pecuniary jurisdiction of Additional District Judge
5
was   taken   by   the   respondents   before   the   Additional
District   Judge,   hence   by   virtue   of   Section   21   of   the
Civil Procedure Code, they were estopped from taking any
such objection in the Revision. 
4.   Shri S.U. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents   refuting   the   submission   of   the   appellant
contends that the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, uses the word “cognizance”.
If a suit is cognizable by a Court then the Court has
got the jurisdiction not only to receive the plaint but
also to decide the suit.   After the amendment by Uttar
Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the Court of
Additional   District   Judge   was   not   only   debarred   from
receiving plaints but was also not competent to decide
Small Causes Suit, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh.
To the view taken by the High Court in  Shobhit Nigam’s
case (supra), there is a contrary view taken by the High
Court in Pankaj Hotel Vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ 2017.
The principles and objections of pecuniary jurisdiction
as contemplated in Section 21(2) is not attracted in the
present   case.     In  Shobhit   Nigam’s   case  (supra)  High
6
Court had issued a general direction for transferring of
Regular Judge Small Causes Court Suits upto valuation of
Rs.   1   lakh   to   the   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division).     He
submits   that   special   leave   petition   deserves   to   be
dismissed. 
5.   From the above submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and the pleadings on record, following are
the   issues,   which   arise   for   consideration   in   this
appeal:
(i) Whether   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Civil   Laws
(Amendment)   Act,   2015   is   only   prospective   in
nature   and   confined   only   to   the   fresh
institution   of   suits   in   the   Court   of   Civil
Judge (Senior Division) w.e.f. 07.12.2015 upto
valuation  of   Rs.   1   lakh   and   shall  not  affect
the   cognizance/hearing   of   pending   suits   upto
the   valuation   of   Rs.   1   lakh   pending   in   the
Court   of   District   Judge/Additional   District
Judge?
(ii) Whether the Court of District Judge/Additional
District Judge, which Court was vested with the
jurisdiction   of   Small   Causes   suit   of   the
7
valuation   of   more   than   Rs.25,000/­   w.e.f.
08.02.1991   shall   cease   to   have   or   could   have
still   exercised   the   pecuniary   jurisdiction   on
the Small Causes Suits of Valuation upto Rs. 1
lakh?
(iii) Whether respondents (tenants) having not raised
any   objection   regarding   jurisdiction   of   the
Court   of   Additional   District   Judge   where   the
suit was pending after amendments made by Uttar
Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the
respondent   (tenant)   is   precluded   to   question
the   competence   of   the   Court   of   Additional
District   Judge   to   decide   the   suit   vide   his
judgment dated 22.10.2016 in view of Section 21
of   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   in   revision
filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small
Causes Court Act?
6.  Before we proceed to consider the issues, which has
arisen for consideration in this appeal, it is useful to
refer the relevant statutory provisions relevant for the
subject.
8
7.   Two enactments namely (i) The Bengal, Agra, Assam
Civil   Courts   Act,   1887   and   (ii)   The   Provincial   Small
Causes   Courts   Act,   1887,   were   passed   with   regard   to
constitution, jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the then
North­Western   Provinces   both   being   enforced   w.e.f.
01.07.1887.     The   Bengal,   Agra   and   Assam   Civil   Courts
Act, 1887 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law
relating   to   Civil   Courts   in   Bengal,   the   North­Western
Provinces and Assam.   Section 3 of the Act provides for
Constitution   of   Civil   Courts.     Section   4   relates   to
number   of   District   Judges,   Subordinate   Judges   and
Munsifs.     Section   17   dealt   with   continuance   of
proceeding   of   Courts   ceasing   to   have   jurisdiction.
Section 18 dealt with extent of original jurisdiction of
District   or   Subordinate   Judge   (for   the   State   of   Uttar
Pradesh, the word “Subordinate” was substituted with the
word   “Civil”).     Section   19   dealt   with   extent   of
jurisdiction of Munsif.  Section 19 as applicable in the
State of Uttar Pradesh was substituted by U.P. Act No.
17 of 1991 was to the following effect:­
“19(1) Save as aforesaid, and subject to the
provisions of sub­section(2), the jurisdiction
9
of a Munsif extends to all like suits of which
the value does not exceed ten thousand rupees.
(2)  The High Court may direct by notification
in the official Gazette, with respect to any
munsif   named   therein,   that   his   jurisdiction
shall exceed to all like suits of such value
not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees as
may be specified in the notification.”
8.   Section   25   deals   with   power   to   invest   Subordinate
Judges and Munsifs with Small Cause Court Jurisdiction.
Section   25   of   the   Act   as   applicable   in   the   State   of
Uttar Pradesh is as follows: ­
“[25.[1]   The   High   Court   may   by   notification
in   the   official   Gazette,   confer   within   such
local limits as it thinks fit, upon any Civil
Judge or Munsif, the jurisdiction of a Judge
of   a   Court   of   Small   Causes   under   the
Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act,   1887   for
the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts
up to such value not exceeding five thousand
rupees as it thinks fit, and may withdraw any
jurisdiction so conferred:
Provided   that   in   relation   to   suits
of   the   nature   referred   to   in   the
proviso   to   sub­section   (2)   of
Section   15   of   the   said   Act,   the
reference   in   this   sub­section   to
five   thousand   rupees   shall   be
construed   as   reference   to   twentyfive
thousand rupees.]
[(2)  The High Court may,  by notification  in
the   Official   Gazette,   confer   upon   any
District   Judge   or   Additional   District   Judge
10
the   jurisdiction   of   a   Judge   of   a   Court   of
Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause
Courts   Act,   1887,   for   the   trial   of   all
suits(irrespective   of   their   value),   by   the
lessor   for   the   eviction   of   a   lessee   from   a
building   after   the   determination   of   his
lease, or for the recovery from him of rent
in   respect   of   the   period   of   occupation
thereof   during   the   continuance   of   the   lease
or of compensation for the use and occupation
thereof   during   the   continuance   of   the   lease
or of compensation for the use and occupation
thereof   after   such   determination   of   lease,
and   may   withdraw   any   jurisdiction   so
conferred.
Explanation – For the purposes of this subsection,
  the   expression   ‘building’   has   the
same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second
Schedule of the said Act.]
[(3)]x x x ]
[(4) Where the jurisdiction of a Judge of a
Court of Small Causes is  conferred  upon any
District   Judge   of   Additional   District   Judge
by   notification   under   section,   then,
notwithstanding anything contained in section
15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
1887,   all   suits   referred   to   in   sub­section
(2)   shall   be   cognizable   by   Court   of   Small
Causes.]”
9. The   Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act,   1887   was
enacted   to   consolidate   and   amend   the   law   relating   to
courts of small causes established beyond the Presidency
town.  AS the name suggests, the Provincial Small Cause
11
Courts Act 1887 was enacted to deal with “Small Causes”.
The Object of the Act was to create a separate court for
dealing with small causes. The object obviously was that
small causes may be dealt with expeditiously.  A summary
procedure   was   also   envisaged   for   dealing   with   small
causes.  The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 was
already   in   place   in   Calcutta,   Bombay   and   Madras.     In
this country, before the Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act 1887 was enacted, there were different legislations
applicable   in   different   areas   with   the   same   object,
i.e., to deal with cases of small causes effectively and
summarily.     The   Statement   of   Objects   and   Reasons   of
Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act   1887   was   to   the
following effect:­
“The   suits   cognizable   in   Courts   of   Small
Causes   are   subject   to   certain   provisos,
described   in   Section   6,   Act   XI   of   1865,   as
“claims   for   money   due   on   bond   or   other
contract,   or   for   rent,   or   for   personal
property, or for the value of such property,
or   for   damages,   when   the   debt,   damage   or
demand does not exceed in amount or value the
sum of five hundred rupees whether on balance
of account or otherwise" and Sec. 586 of the
Code   of   Civil   Procedure   provides   that   "no
second   appeal   shall   lie   in   any   suit   of   the
nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes,
when the amount or value of the subject­matter
12
of   the   original   suit   does   not   exceed   five
hundred rupees". Since Section 6 of the Act of
1865 was enacted, a vast quantity of case­law
has grown up around it, and, as the rulings of
the   Courts   have   not   been   uniform,   doubts
constantly   arise   on   the   question   whether   a
suit   is   or   is   not   a   suit   of   the   nature
cognizable   by   a   Court   of   Small   Causes,   and,
consequently, whether or not, where the suit
is of value not exceeding five hundred rupees
and   the   original   decree   made   in   it   was   not
final but was open to appeal, an appeal will
also   lie   from   the   appellate   decree   in   the
suit.   It   appears   to   the   Government   of   India
that  the conflicting  constructions  placed on
Section   6,   of   which   some   are   due   to   the
progress of legislation during the last twenty
years (ILR 3 All 66), render a more accurate
definition   necessary   of   the   suits   of   which
Courts   of   Small   Causes   may   take   cognizance,
and that legislation to this end should follow
Sections   18   and   19   of   the   Presidency   Small
Cause   Courts   Act,   1882,   in   declaring   the
jurisdiction of those Courts to extend to all
suits of a civil nature, subject to specified
exceptions.   This   Bill   has   accordingly   been
prepared, its primary object being to remove
the   doubts   now   felt   as   to   the   effect   of
Section   6,   Act   XI   of   1865;   and,   as   several
sections   and   parts   of   sections   of   that   Act
have,   from   time   to   time,   been   repealed   and
other   sections   are   obsolete   as   regards   both
expression and utility, it has been considered
desirable to repeal the Act and re­enact the
substance of the extant portions of it………." —
Gazette of India, 1886, Part V, page 8.”
10. Black's   Law   Dictionary   has   referred   to   “Small
Claims Court”, which explained it in following manner:­
13
"A   court   that   informally   and   expeditiously
adjudicates claims that seek damages below a
specified   monetary   amount,   usu.   claims   to
collect   small   accounts   or   debts.­­   Also
termed   small­debts   court;   conciliation
court.” 
11.     The   object   as   is   delineated   from   Statements   of
Objects of enactment was to provide for speedy machinery
for small claims.  Although, Code of Civil Procedure is
applicable   by   virtue   of   Section   17   of   Small   Causes
Courts Act, but the Code of Civil Procedure itself in
Order   L   provides   a   simplified   procedure   excluding
various rules and orders of the C.P.C. for small causes
cases. Order L of the C.P.C. is as follows:­
“1.  Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   ­  The
provisions   hereinafter   specified   shall   not
extend   to   Courts   constituted   under   the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of
1887)[or under the Berar Small Cause Courts
Law,   1905]   or   to   Courts   exercising   the
jurisdiction   of   a   Court   of   Small   Causes
[under the said Act or Law], [or to Courts in
[any part of India to which the said Act does
not   extend]   exercising   a   corresponding
jurisdiction] that is to say­
(a) so much of this Schedule as relates to­
(i) suits excepted from the cognizance
of a Court of Small Causes or the
execution of decrees in such suits;
(ii)   the   execution   of   decrees   against
immovable property or the interest
14
of   a   partner   in   partnership
property;
(iii) the settlement of issues; and
(b) the following rules and orders:­
Order II, rule 1 (frame of suit);
Order X, rule 3 (record of examination
of parties);
Order XV, except so much of rule 4 as
provides for the pronouncement at once
of judgement;
Order XVIII, rules 5 to 12 (evidence);
Orders XLI to XLV (appeals);
Order   XLVII,   rules   2,   3,   5,   6,   7
(review);
Order LI.”
12.     Section   5   provided   for   establishment   of   small
causes   courts   by   the   State   Government.   Chapter   III   of
the   Act   deals   with   “Jurisdiction   of   Courts   of   Small
Causes”. Section 15 of the Act provides: ­
15.  Cognizance   of  suits  by  Courts  of   Small
Causes­(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not
take   cognizance   of   the   suits   specified   in
the   Second   Schedule   as   suits   expected   from
the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2)   Subject   to   the   exceptions   specified   in
that   Schedule  and  to  the   provisions  of  any
enactment  for  the  time   being   in  force,  all
suits of a civil nature of which the value
does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be
cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.
15
(3)   Subject   as   aforesaid,   the   [State
Government] may, by order in writing, direct
that   all   suits   of   a   civil   nature   of   which
the   value   does   not   exceed   one   thousand
rupees   shall   be   cognizable   by   a   Court   of
Small Causes mentioned in the order."
13.  The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972
(U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) was enacted by Uttar Pradesh
Legislature with the Presidential assent.  The Statement
of Objects and Reasons of U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, which
are relevant for understanding the Scheme and purpose of
the amendment are to the following effect:­
“Prefatory   Note—Statement   of   Objects   and
Reasons.­­(1)   The   Provincial   Small   Cause
Courts   Act,   1887,   provides   for   a   summary
procedure in the trial of suits. Moreover, the
decisions of such courts are not appealable,
and   only   one   revision   is   provided.   However
such   courts   cannot   take   cognizance   of   suits
for   possession   of   immovable   property.   By   a
recent amendment contained in Section 20(6) of
the   U.P.   Urban   Buildings   (Regulation   of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P.
Act XIII of 1972), eviction suits against the
tenant   after   the   expiration   of   his   tenancy
have been taken out from the purview of this
exception and have been made cognizable by the
small cause courts. This has been done because
in such suits the issues are usually simple.
In cases where the question of title comes to
be in issue, a small cause court has power to
return   the   plaint   for   presentation   to   a
regular   court.   It   is   now   proposed   to   delete
the aforesaid amendment from U. P. Act XIII OF
16
1972,   and   instead,   to   incorporate   a   wider
amendment   directly   in   the   Provincial   Small
Causes Court Act, 1887, so that all buildings,
and   not   merely   those   buildings   which   are
governed   by   U.   P.   Act   XIII   of   1972,   may   be
covered thereby. It is further proposed that
in   respect   of   such   suits   the   ordinary   small
cause courts may be conferred jurisdiction to
decide   cases   of   a   value   up   to   Rs.   5,000
(instead of only Rs. 2,000 in some districts
and Rs.1,000 in most districts, as at present)
and   that   cases   of   a   higher   value   may   be
decided by District Judges sitting as Judges
of   Small   Causes,   and   revisions   against   such
decisions of District Judge shall lie to the
High  Court, while revision  against decisions
of other Courts of Small Causes may continue
to lie to the District Judge.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
14.   As per Section 15(1), A Court of Small Causes was
not competent to take cognizance of the suits specified
in   the   Second   Schedule.     Clause   (4)   of   the   Second
Schedule of the Act was to the following effect:­
“(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable
property or for the recovery of an interest in
such property;”
15. By Act No. 37 of 1972 amendments were made in
Section 15, Section 25 and Second Schedule of the Act.
17
Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972
provides as follows:-
“2. Amendment of Section 15 of Act IX of
1887.-- In Section 15 of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act, 1887, as amended in its
application to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter
referred to as the principal Act, in subsection
(3), the following proviso shall be
inserted, namely:
"Provided that in relation to suits
by the lessor for the eviction of a
lessee from a building after the
determination of his lease, or for
recovery from him of rent in respect
of the period of occupation thereof
during the continuance of the lease,
or of compensation for the use and
occupation thereof after such
determination of lease, the
reference in this sub-section to two
thousand rupees shall be construed
as a reference to five thousand
rupees.
Explanation.--For the purposes of
this sub-section, the expression
'building' has the same meaning as
in Article (4) in the Second
Schedule."
3. Amendment of Section 25 of Act IX of
1887.-- In Section 25 of the principal Act the
following proviso thereto shall be inserted,
namely :
"Provided that in relation to any
case decided by a District Judge or
Additional District Judge exercising
the jurisdiction of Judge of Small
Causes, the power of revision under
18
this section shall vest in the High
Court."
4. Amendment of the Second Schedule to Act IX
of 1887.-- In the Second Schedule to the
principal Act, for Article (4) the following
Article shall be substituted, namely :
"(4) a suit for the possession of
immovable property or for the
recovery of an interest in such
property, but not including a suit
by a lessor for the eviction of a
lessee from a building after the
determination of his lease, and for
the recovery from him of
compensation for the use and
occupation of that building after
such determination of lease.
Explanation.--For the purposes of
this Article, the expression
'buildings, means a residential or
non-residential roofed structure,
and includes any land (including any
garden), garages and out-houses,
appurtenant to such building, and
also includes any fittings and
fixtures affixed to the building for
the more beneficial enjoyment
thereof."
16.  One more amendment, which was affected by U.P. Act
No. 37 of 1972 was amendment in Section 25 of Bengal,
Agra   and   Assam   Civil   Courts   Act,   which   was   made   by
Section 5 of the Act, which is to the following effect:­
“5.   Amendment   of   Section   25   of   Act   XII   of
1887.­­  Section   25   of   the   Bengal,   Agra   and
Assam   Civil   Courts   Act,   1887,   as   amended   in
19
its application to Uttar Pradesh shall be renumbered
as sub­section (1) thereof, and­­
(i)   in   sub­section   (1),   as   so   renumbered,
  for   the   existing   proviso,   the
following   proviso   shall   be   substituted,
namely :
"Provided that in relation to suits
of   the   nature   referred   to   in   the
proviso   to   sub­section   (3)   of
Section   15   of   the   said   Act   the
references   in   this   sub­section   to
one thousand rupees and five hundred
rupees   shall   be   construed
respectively   as   references   to   five
thousand   rupees   and   one   thousand
rupees."
(ii)   after   sub­section   (1)   as   so   renumbered,
the following sub­section shall
be inserted, namely :
"(2)   The   State   Government   may   by
notification   in   the   official
Gazette,   confer   upon   any   District
Judge   or   Additional   District   Judge
the   jurisdiction   of   a   Judge   of   a
Court   of   Small   Causes   under   the
Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act,
1887,   for   the   trial   of   all   suits
(irrespective   of   their   value),   by
the   lessor   for   the   eviction   of   a
lessee   from   a   building   after   the
determination   of   his   lease,   or   for
the   recovery   from   him   of   rent   in
respect of the period of occupation
thereof   during   the   continuance   of
the lease or of compensation for the
use   and   occupation   thereof   after
such determination of lease, and may
20
withdraw   any   jurisdiction   so
conferred.
Explanation­­For   the   purposes   of
this   sub­section,   the   expression
'building'   has   same   meaning   as   in
Article   (4)   in   the   Second   Schedule
to the said Act.
(3)   The   State   Government   may   by
notification   in   the   official   Gazette
delegate   to   the   High   Court   its   powers
under this section."
17.   As noted above, the jurisdiction of Small Causes
Court in so far as State of Uttar Pradesh was concerned
was to be vested in both in the Court of Munsifs [now
known as Civil Judge (Junior Division)] and Civil Judge
[now designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division)].   As
noted   above,   Court   of   Small   Causes   were   empowered   to
take   cognizance   of   small   causes   having   particular
pecuniary jurisdiction only.  Section 25 of the Bengal,
Agra   and   Assam   Civil   Courts   Act,   1887   empowered   the
State   Government   by   notification   to   confer   upon   any
Subordinate   Judges   and   Munsifs   with   jurisdiction   of
Small Cause Court for the trial of suits and cognizance
of   such   suits   upto   the   value   as   fixed   in   the   Act.
21
Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts
Act, 1887 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh
has been amended as has been noticed above, where the
High Court exercising power under Section 25(2) of the
Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 can  confer
upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge the
jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes Court for the
trial of all suits(irrespective of their value), by the
lessor for the eviction of a lessee of a building after
the determination of his lease.
18.  In Section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
for sub­section (2) and (3), following was substituted
by U.P. Act 17 of 1991 w.e.f. 15.01.1991:­
“(2)   Subject   to   the   exceptions   specified   in
that   Schedule   and   to   the   provisions   of   any
enactment   for   the   time   being   in   force,   all
suits   of   a   civil   nature   of   which   the   value
does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be
cognizable by a Court of Small Causes;
Provided that in relation to suits by the
lessor   for   the   eviction   of   a   lessee   from   a
building after the determination of his lease
or for recovery from him of rent in respect
of   the   period   of   occupation   thereof   during
the   continuance   of   the   lease,   or   of
compensation   for   use   and   occupation   thereof
22
after   the   determination   of   the   lease,   the
reference   in   this   sub­section   to   five
thousand   rupees   shall   be   construed   as   a
reference to twenty­five thousand rupees.
Explanation­   For   the   purposes   of   this   subsection,
  the   expression   ‘building’   has   the
same   meaning   as   in   Art.(4)   in   the   Second
Schedule.”
19. Section   17   of   the   Act   makes   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure applicable to the Court of Small Causes in all
suits cognizable by it and all proceedings arising out
of   all   such   suits.   By   Uttar   Pradesh   Civil   Laws
(Amendment)   Act,   2015   w.e.f.   07.12.2015,   Section   19,
Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts
Act,   1887   and   Section   15   of   Provincial   Small   Cause
Courts   Act,   1887,   were   amended.   The   act   contains   only
four sections which is to the following effect: ­
“AN ACT further to amend the Bengal, Agra and
Assam   Civil   Courts   Act,   1887   and   the
Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act   ­1887   in
their application to Uttar Pradesh.
IT IS HEREBY enacted in the Sixty­sixth year
of Republic of India as follows:­
CHAPTER – I
PRELIMINARY
1.(1)   This   Act   may   be   called   the   Uttar
Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015,
23
(2)   It   shall   extend   to   whole   of   Uttar
Pradesh.
CHAPTER – II
Amendment   of   Bengal,   Agra   and   Assam,   Civil
Courts Act­1887.
2. Bengal, Agra and Assam, Civil Courts Act1887
hereinafter in this chapter referred to
as the principal Act,­
(a)   in   sub­section   (1)   for   the   words   “ten
thousand rupees” the words “one lakh rupees”
shall be substituted;
(b) in sub­section (2) for the words “twenty
five   thousand   rupees”   the   words   “five   lakh
rupees” shall be substituted.
3.   In   section   21   of   the   principal   Act,   in
sub­section (1), in clause (b)­
(a) for the words “one lakh rupees” the words
“five lakh rupees” shall be substituted; and
(b)   for   the   words   “five   lakh   rupees”   the
words   “twenty   five   lakh   rupees”   shall   be
substituted.
CHAPTER  ­ III
Amendment   of   the   Provincial   Small   Cause
Courts Act, 1887
4.   In   Section   15   of   the   Provincial   Small
Cause Courts Act, 1887,­
(a)   in   sub­section(2)   for   the   words   “five
thousand   rupees”   the   words   “twenty   five
thousand rupees” shall be substituted;
24
(b) in the proviso to sub­section (2) for the
words “twenty five thousand rupees” the words
“one lakh rupees” shall be substituted.”
20. By   the   above   amendment   in   the   Provincial   Small
Cause   Courts   Act,   1887   the   limit   of   pecuniary
jurisdiction   of   small   causes   court   was   increased   from
Rs.25,000/­ to Rs.1 Lakh. The Judge, Small Causes Court
in the State of U.P. is senior­most Civil Judge, working
in the district. Although the Court of Small Causes was
empowered   to   take   cognizance   of   a   suit   upto   the
valuation   of   Rs.1   lakh   w.e.f.   07.12.2015,   the   suit   in
question namely Small Causes Suit No.1 of 2010 which was
pending   in   the   Court   of   Additional   District   Judge,
Firozabad   continued   to   proceed   in   the   court   of
Additional   District   Judge.   None   of   the   parties   raised
any   objection   with   regard   to   hearing   of   suit   by
Additional District Judge, consequently, the Additional
District Judge heard the parties and by judgment dated
22.10.2016 decreed the suit for eviction and due rent &
compensation.   The   tenant   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   of
Additional District Judge filed a revision under Section
25
25   of   Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act,   1887,   before
the High Court.
21. One of the grounds taken before the High Court was
that   in   view   of   the   U.P.   Civil   Laws   (Amendment)   Act,
2015, the Court of Additional District Judge ceased to
have jurisdiction to try suit between lessor and lessee
of value upto Rs.1 Lac w.e.f. 07.12.2015, assumption of
jurisdiction   subsequent   thereto,   is   without
jurisdiction.
22. The   High   Court   accepted   the   above   submissions
raised by learned Counsel for the respondent  vis­a­vis
and   decreed   the   suit   and   allowed   the   revision   by
remanding   the   suit   for   fresh   decision   before   Small
Causes Court presided by Civil Judge, Senior Division.
Following are the reasons given by the High Court for
allowing the revision:­
“...The controversy as to the jurisdiction of
the Judge Small Causes Court has been decided
by this Court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2016
passed   in   SCC   Revision   No.278   of   2016,
Shobhit   Nigam   Vs.   Smt.   Batulan   and   another.
26
It   has   been   held   that   consequent   to   the
amendment,   in   Section   15   of   the   Provincial
Small Causes Court Act, an SCC Suit having a
valuation   between   Rs.25,000/­   to   Rs.1   lac
shall   lie   before   the   Small   Cause   Court
presided   over   by   a   Civil   Judge(Senior
Division).   The   suits   having   a   valuation   of
more   than   Rs.1   Lac   would   lie   before   the
Additional   District   Judge/District   Judge
constituting a Small Causes Court.
Shri   Satendra   Kumar­I,   who   has   filed   their
counter   affidavit   in   Court   today,   has   not
been   able   to   effectively   rebut   the
submissions   made   by   the   counsel   for   the
revisionist.
Under   the   circumstances,   this   Court   finds
that   the   order   impugned   is   without
jurisdiction and is hereby set aside. The SCC
revision is allowed...”
23. Now   we   proceed   to   consider   the   issues   which   have
arisen in the present appeals:­
ISSUE NO.1 & 2
24. Prior to Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,
2015,   as   per   Section   15(2)   of   Provincial   Small   Cause
Court, 1887 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh
in relation to suits by lessor for eviction of lessee
27
from   building   after   determination   of   his   lease   after
recovering from him of rent, the Court of Small Causes
would have taken cognizance of suits value of which does
not   exceed   Rs.25,000/­.   The   suit   was   filed   with   the
valuation of Rs.21,175/­. The Suit was initially filed
in   the   Court   of   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Small
Cause   Court,   Firozabad.   Plaintiff   filed   a   application
for amendment which was allowed permitting the valuation
to be enhanced to Rs.27,775/­. The suit thereafter was
transferred   to   the   Court   of   District   Judge   and   renumbered
as S.C.C.Suit No.1 of 2010.
25. The   main   issue   to   be   answered   is   as   to   whether
after 07.12.2015, the court of Additional District Judge
where the suit in question was pending could still have
pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit or suit ought
to   have   been   transferred   back   to   the   court   of   Civil
Judge, Senior Division.
28
26. The High Court while in allowing the revision has
relied   on   an   earlier   judgment   of   the   High   Court   in
Shobhit Nigam vs. Smt.Batulan and another (supra).
27. In   above   case   also   the   valuation   of   small   causes
suit   was   Rs.44,000/­   and   the   suit   was   pending   in   the
court of Additional District Judge who after U.P. Civil
Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 proceeded to decide the suit
wide   its   judgment   dated   24.05.2016.   S.C.C.   Revision
filed   in   the   High   Court,   the   same   very   argument   was
pressed that the order of Additional District Judge is
without   jurisdiction.   The   High   Court   noticed   the
provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes
Courts   Act,   the   U.P.   Civil   Laws   (Amendment)   Act,   2015
and   had   also   taken   note   of   the   objects   and   reason   of
U.P.   Civil   Laws   (Amendment)   Act,   2015.   The   High   Court
held that the phrase “institution” as occurring in the
objects and reasons does not confine to institution of
civil   suits   only   and   after   the   amendment   w.e.f.
07.12.2015,   rather,   District   Judge   and   Additional
District   Judge   could   have   no   jurisdiction   to   decide
29
suits having valuation of less than Rs.1 lac and their
jurisdiction   shall   be   only   with   regard   to   those   cases
which has valuation of over Rs.1 lac. The High Court in
Shobhit   Nigam’s   Case  held   that   assumption   of
jurisdiction   of   Additional   District   Judge   deciding   the
suit having valuation of Rs.44,000/­ is illegal and set
aside   the   judgment.   In  Shobhit   Nigam’s   case,   the   High
Court also directed that copy of judgment be circulated
to all District Judges of U.P. for necessary compliance
to ensure that all pending suits of rent and eviction
from   a   building   after   determination   of   lease   falling
under   proviso   to   Section   15(2)   of   the   Act   upto   the
valuation of Rs.1,00,000/­ be transferred to the Small
Causes   Court   presided   over   by   the   senior   most   Civil
Judge, Senior Division of the district irrespective of
the date of their institution.
28. Learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent
submitted that judgment of Shobhit Nigam's case does not
lay   down   the   correct   law.   He   has   relied   on   another
judgment of learned Single Judge decided on 30.08.2017
30
in S.C.C. Revision No.171 and 172 of 2017, Pankaj Hotel
and   others   vs.   Bal   Mukund   and   others.   Learned   Single
Judge who decided the case of  Pankaj Hotel and others
took   the   contrary   view   and   held   that   U.P.   Civil   Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2015 is only prospective in nature and
was   applicable   with   regard   to   institutions   of   fresh
suits only. In the suits pending, the Court of District
Judge/Additional   District   Judge   continued   to   have
pecuniary jurisdiction to decide Small Causes Suits upto
the   valuation   of   Rs.1   lac   even   after   U.P.   Civil   Laws
(Amendment)   Act,   2015   enforced   w.e.f.   07.12.2015.
Learned Single Judge referred to an earlier judgment in
S.C.C. Revision defective No. 76 of 2017, Sanjay Sharma
alias   Pintu   vs.   Anil   Dua   alias   Titu,   decided   on
13.07.2017   where   learned   Singe   Judge   had   taken   a
contrary view to the judgment of learned Single Judge in
Shobhit Nigam’s Case (Supra).
29.  One of the issues, which has to be answered is as
to whether the Court of Additional District Judge, which
has been invested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes
31
Court   after   amendment   by   Uttar   Pradesh   Civil   Laws
(Amendment)   Act,   2015   could   still   have   proceeded   to
decide   the   Small   Causes   Suit   w.e.f.   07.12.2015,   which
suits became cognizable by a Judge Small Causes Court,
i.e., a Court presided by a Civil Judge.  For answering
the above issue, we need to find out the Scheme of Small
Cause Courts Act. 
30.  As noticed above, Small Cause Courts were envisaged
to be Courts, which may expeditiously dispose of small
causes.   Small causes were contemplated to be disposed
of   by   the   Courts   by   following   the   procedure   less
cumbersome   as   compared   to   those   applicable   in   the
regular civil courts.   By U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, the
cases   by   a   lessor   for   eviction   of   lessee   and   for
recovery of rent in respect of the period of occupation
was also taken in fold of small causes, which could be
taken cognizance by Small Causes Court after amendment
of Clause (4) of Second Schedule of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act, 1887.   The amendment made in Section
25 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 by
32
U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 empowered the State Government
to confer upon any District Judge or Additional District
Judge   power   of   Judge   of   Small   Causes   Court   “for   the
trial of suits irrespective of their value by the lessor
for the eviction of lessee…..”  The above amendment was
necessitated since the Court of Small Causes presided by
Civil   Judge   could   have   entertained   small   causes   suits
having   value   of   only   five   thousand   rupees,   as   per
amendment by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 cases by lessor for
the   eviction   of   lessee   having   valuation   of   more   than
five   thousand   rupees   could   not   have   been   taken
cognizance   by   Civil   Judges,   who   were   designated   as
Judges   of   Small   Causes   Court   to   take   up   such   cases.
When Legislature treated all suits by the lessor for the
eviction   of   lessee   from   a   building   as   a   “Small   Cause
Suit”, a forum had to be created for deciding such cases
as small cause cases.   The expression “irrespective of
their   value”   used   in   Section   25   as   amended   was   with
clear   intention   that   irrespective   of   the   value,   the
cases   filed   by   the   lessor   for   the   eviction   of   lessee
should be treated as small causes cases and should be
33
dealt as a small cause case.   By subsequent amendment,
the Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge become
empowered   to   decide   cases   of   small   cause   upto   twentyfive
  thousand   rupees   and   cases   above   twenty­five
thousand   rupees   by   lessor   against   lessee   were   to   be
taken cognizance by Court of Additional District Judges.
The   legislative   Scheme   contains   a   clear   dichotomy
between cases, which could have been taken cognizance by
small causes courts presided by Civil Judge and those of
small   cause   cases   presided   by   District   Judge   or
Additional District Judge.   The dividing line was only
valuation   of   small   cause   cases   relating   to   suits   by
lessor   against   the   lessee.     Necessity   to   empower   the
District Judge/Additional District Judge to decide small
cause   cases   relating   to   eviction   by   lessor   against
lessee was with the above intent. The Legislature never
intended   that   all   cases   pertaining   to   suits   by   lessor
against the lessee of any valuation could be filed in
any Small Causes Court. 
34
31.     It   is   true   that   District   Judge   or   Additional
District   Judge   functioning   as   Small   Causes   Courts   can
take   cognizance   of   all   suits   irrespective   of   their
value.     But   use   of   the   words   “irrespective   of   their
value”   was   in   contradiction   of   the   pecuniary   value,
which was given to Judge of Small Causes Courts presided
by   Civil   Judge.     The   fact   that   District   Judge   or
Additional   District   Judge   can   take   cognizance   of   all
suits irrespective of their value shall not whittle down
or dilute the line of separation between two courts in
taking cognizance of small cause cases.   The mere fact
that   District   Judge   or   Additional   District   Judge   can
take   cognizance   of   suits   of   unlimited   value   will   not
empower   them   to   take   cognizance   of   cases,   which,
according to statutory Scheme can be taken only by small
causes courts presided by Civil Judge.   It is relevant
to notice that the Allahabad High Court had occasion to
consider   the   provisions   of   the   Provincial   Small   Cause
Courts   Act,   1887   as   applicable   in   the   State   of   Uttar
Pradesh.  A reference is made to M.P. Mishra Vs. Sangam
Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975 Allahabad 425.   In the above case
35
before the Allahabad High Court, a small cause suit was
decided   by   the   Additional   District   Judge,   which   had
valuation of more than five thousand rupees.  Arguments
were raised that valuation of small cause case is more
than   five   thousand   rupees,   hence   Additional   District
Judge   could   not   have   decided   the   case   as   small   cause
case rather it ought to have been decided as a normal
civil suit.  In the above context, provision of U.P. Act
No.   37   of   1972   and   U.P.   Act   No.   19   of   1973   by   which
Section 25 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act,
1887   was   amended   by   adding   another   sub­section,   i.e.
sub­section(4), and the notifications issued by the High
Court in above respect were noticed.   Paragraph Nos. 5
to 8, which are relevant are as follows:­ 
“5.  By the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of
1973 (President's Act No. 19 of 1973) another
sub­section, namely, Sub­section (4) was added
to Section 25. The said Sub­section (4) reads
as follows :
"Where   the   jurisdiction   of   a   Judge
of   a   Court   of   Small   Causes   is
conferred upon any District Judge or
Additional   District   Judge   by
notification   under   this   section,
then,   notwithstanding   anything
contained   in   Section   15   of   the
Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act,
36
1887   all   suits   referred   to   in   Subsection
  (2)   shall   be   cognizable   by
Court   of   Small   Causes."
By virtue of Section 1 (3) of the said Act of
1973   it   shall   be   deemed   that   the   said   Subsection
  (4)   came   into   force   on   the   20th
September,   1972,   i.e.   the   date   on   which   the
U.P.   Civil   Laws   Amendment   Act   of   1972   came
into force.
6.  Certain   notifications   which   have   been
issued may also be noticed here. Notification
No. 4111 (8)/VII­A­580/72, dated September 22,
1972,   published   in   Uttar   Pradesh   Gazette,
dated 30­9­72, Part I (Page 5252), issued by
the State Government lays down as under :
"In exercise of the powers conferred
by Sub­section (3) of Section 15 of
the   Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts
Act,   1887   (Act   IX   of   1887)   as
amended   by   the   U.P.   Civil   Laws
Amendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 37
of   1972)   and   in   continuation   of
Government   Notification   No.   1   (8)
69­Nyaya   (Ka­II),   dated   September
23, 1969, the Governor is pleased to
direct,   that   subject   to   the
exceptions   specified   in   the   Second
Schedule to the first mentioned Act,
and   to   the   Provisions   of   any
enactment   for   the   time   being   in
force, all suite referred to in the
proviso   to   the   said   sub­section   of
which the value does not exceed five
thousand   rupees,   shall,   with   effect
from the date of publication of this
notification,   be   cognizable   by   the
Courts   of   Judge.   Small   Causes,
Bareilly,   Moradabad,   Meerut,
Gorakhpur,   Aligarh,   Kanpur,
37
Allahabad,   Varanasi,   Agra,   Lucknow,
and   the   Court   of   additional   Judge,
Small Causes, Lucknow."
7.  The   State   Government   issued   another
notification   on   the   same   day   i.e.   Sep.   22,
1972   dated   September   22,   1972,   published   in
Uttar Pradesh Gazette, Part I, dated October
7, 1972 (page No. 5973), which lays down as
under :
"In   exercise   of   the   powers   under
Sub­section (3) of Section 25 of the
Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts
Act,   1887   (Act   XII   of   1887)   as
amended   by   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Civil
Laws   (Amendment)   Act,   1972,   (U.P.
Act   No.   37   of   1972)   and   in
supersession   of   all   earlier
notifications issued in this behalf,
the Governor is pleased to delegate
to   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Allahabad   the   powers   of   the   State
Government under the said section."
8.  By   Notification   No.   525   dated   25­10­1972
the   High   Court   conferred   "upon   all   the
District   Judges   and   Additional   District
Judges, the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court
of   Small   Causes   under   the   Provincial   Small
Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act IX of 1887), for
the trial of all suits (irrespective of their
value) of the nature referred to in the said
Sub­section (2)."
32.  The High Court also noticed the object and purpose
of  Uttar   Pradesh   Civil   Laws   (Amendment)   Act,   1972   and
High   Court   held   that  Additional   District   Judge   had
38
jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases of valuation of
more than five thousand rupees.   In Paragraph Nos. 11
and 12, following was stated:­
“11. The amendments which were effected by the
U.P.   Civil   Laws   Amendment   Act   of   1972   were
motivated   by   a   consideration   that   the   suits
for eviction filed by the lessors against the
lessees of buildings took an unduly long time
to be finally decided and, therefore, it was
thought   advisable   that   such   suits   should   be
tried as suits of the nature of small causes
suits   so   that   they   could   be   disposed   of
expeditiously   and   there   could   be   no   appeal
against the decision of the trial Court. This
change   was   sought   to   be   brought   about   by
amending Article 4 of the Second Schedule of
the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act so that
a   suit   by   a   lessor   for   the   eviction   of   a
lessee from a building after the determination
of his lease and for the recovery from him of
compensation for the use and occupation of the
buildings   after   such   determination   of   lease
was no longer excepted from the cognizance of
the   court   of   small   causes.   Such   suits,
therefore,   became   triable   by   the   Courts   of
Judge, Small Causes and by virtue of Section
16   of   the   Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act
they   became   exclusively   triable   by   such
courts. Of course, the limitation on account
of   the   valuation   of   the   suit   remained,   This
limitation was contained in Section 15(2) and
in Section 15(3). Ordinarily, the jurisdiction
of the Small Causes Court stretched up to Rs.
1,000   under   Section   15(2)   of   the   Provincial
Small   Cause   Courts   Act.   But   under   Section
15(3)   the   State   Government   was   empowered   to
raise the pecuniary limit of such jurisdiction
to Rs. 5,000 in respect of suits between the
lessors   and   the   lessees   for   eviction   of   the
39
latter   after   the   determination   of   their
tenancy   from   buildings.   This   result   was
brought about by the addition of the proviso
to   Section   15(3)   by   the   U.P.   Civil   Laws
Amendment Act, 1972. As has been stated, the
State Government issued a Notification dated
Sept.   22,   1972,   whereby   the   Court   of   Judge,
Small Causes situated at Bareilly, Moradabad,
Meerut, Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur, Allahabad,
Varanasi,   Agra,   Lucknow   and   the   Court   of
Additional Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow were
empowered   to   take   cognizance   of   the   suits
between   the   lessors   and   the   lessees   for   the
latter's  eviction from buildings whose value
does   not   exceed   Rs.   5,000.   In   view   of   the
addition of Sub­section (2) to Section 25 of
the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act it
became   possible   to   confer   upon   the   District
Judge   or   Additional   District   Judge   the
jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small
Causes for the trial of suits for eviction of
lessees and for recovery of rents and damages
(disregarding   some   minor   aspects   of   the
matter).   Such   a   jurisdiction   has   been
conferred   upon   the   District   Judges   and   the
Additional   District   Judges   by   the   aforesaid
Notification  dated  25­10­1972 issued by this
Court.
12.  In   view   of   the   aforesaid   amendments,   in
the   district   of   Allahabad   (from   where   this
revision   has   arisen)   the   Court   of   Judge   of
Small   Causes   had   a   jurisdiction   to   take
cognizance   of   the   suits   between   the   lessors
and   the   lessees   in   respect   of   the   latter's
eviction from buildings provided the valuation
of such suits does not exceed Rs. 5,000. If
the valuation exceeds Rs. 5,000 then the court
of   the   District   Judge   and   the   Additional
District Judge who have been empowered to take
cognizance of such suits can try the same in
the manner in which suits of the Small Cause
40
Court nature are tried. In Section 25(2), it
is clearly stated that the District Judge or
the   Additional   District   Judge   will   have   the
jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small
Causes for the trial of the aforesaid variety
of   suits   irrespective   of   their   value.   In   my
view,   if   the   contention   on   behalf   of   the
applicant were to be accepted then it will be
doing   violence   to   the   said   expression.   Any
interpretation which seeks to put a limitation
on   the   valuation   of   the   Suits   cognizable   by
the District Judge or the Additional District
Judge will be contrary to the clear expression
used   in   Sub­section   (2)   of   Section   25
"irrespective of their value". Learned counsel
for   the   applicant   placed   reliance   on   the
pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in
Raja Soap Factory v. S. P. Shantharaj   [AIR
(1965)   SC   1449.   In   my   view,   the   said
pronouncement does not support the contention
on   behalf   of   the   applicant.   Counsel   also
sought to support his contention by inviting
my   attention   to   Sub­section   (4)   added   to
Section   25   by   the   U.P.   Civil   Laws   Amendment
Act of 1973. The said Sub­section (4) has been
reproduced above and in the concluding portion
thereof   the   words   used   are   ".........   all
suits referred to in Sub­section (2) shall be
cognizable   by   court   of   Small   Causes".   It   is
urged that if the legislative intention were
that   the   District   Judge   or   the   Additional
District Judge on whom the powers of a Judge
of a Court of Small Causes have been conferred
should   take   cognizance   of   the   aforesaid
variety   of   suits   between   the   lessor   and   the
lessee then in the concluding portion of Subsection
  (4)   the   legislature   would   not   have
used   the   words   "Court   of   Small   Causes"   but
would have used the expression "District Judge
or   Additional   District   Judge,"   counsel
contended that there is a distinction between
a Court of Small Causes established under the
41
Provincial Small Causes Court and officers who
are   invested   with   the   powers   of   a   Judge   of
Court   of   Small   Causes.   In   my   opinion   this
contention   is   not   valid.   In   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)
and   Narayan   Sitaram   v.   Bhagu   [(1907)   ILR   31
Bom   314)]   it   has   been   laid   down   that   the
Courts on which Small Cause Court's powers are
conferred shall also be deemed to be Courts of
Small   Causes.   Section   4   of   the   Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act lays down as under:­­
"In   this   Act,   unless   there   is
something   repugnant   in   the   subject
or context, "Court of Small Causes"
means   a   Court   of   Small   Causes
constituted   under   this   Act.   and
includes   any   person   exercising
jurisdiction   under   this   Act   in   any
such Court."
It   is   clear   that   the   expression   "Court   of
Small   Causes"   has   to   be   interpreted   in   the
context in which the said expression is used.
In   my   view,   the   expression   'Court   of   Small
Causes' used at the end of subsection (4) of
Section   25   really   means   and   refers   to   a
District Judge or Additional District Judge on
whom   the   jurisdiction   of   a   Judge   of   Small
Causes has been conferred.”
33.     The   Allahabad   High   Court   has   followed   the   above
judgment in several cases subsequently.
42
34.  Whether the Additional District Judge, in the facts
of the present case, had jurisdiction to take cognizance
of small causes suits having valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh
and could still have proceeded to decide the suit, whose
valuation was less than Rs. 1 lakh?  We may also notice
provision of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which   provides   that   suits   shall   be   instituted   in   the
Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Section
15 of Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:­
“Every suit shall be instituted in the Court
of the lowest grade competent to try it.”
35.     The   purpose   of   Section   15   is   obvious   that   even
though more than one court has jurisdiction to try the
suit,   it   should   be   instituted   in   the   Court   of   lowest
grade. For example, a small cause case can be instituted
in Court of Small Cause presided by Civil Judge having
valuation of upto Rs. 1 lakh as on date and small cause
suit   having   valuation   of   more   than   Rs.   1   lakh   can   be
instituted in the Court of District Judge or Additional
District Judge.  As per Section 15 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, suit of less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation has to
43
be   instituted   in   Small   Causes   Court   presided   by   Civil
Judge.   Although, District Judge or Additional District
Judge has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction but under the
legislative   Scheme,   the   suit   is   not   to   be   taken
cognizance by the District Judge or Additional District
Judge, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh.  Even though
if   Section   15   of   the   C.P.C.   is   a   provision,   which
regulate   the   institution   of   suits   and   does   not   affect
the   jurisdiction   of   Courts,   reading   the   provision   of
Section   15   alongwith   relevant   provisions   of   the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and the Bengal,
Agra,   Assam   Civil   Courts   Act,   1887,   the   legislative
Scheme is clear that small cause cases should be taken
cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge
upto   the   valuation   of   Rs.   1   lakh   and   cases   having
valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh by  District Judge or
Additional District Judge, who have been invested with
the   power   of   Small   Cause   Courts.     Unless   the   above
legislative intent and Scheme is followed, there shall
be   confusion   and   inconsistency.     The   legislative
provisions have to be interpreted in a manner, which may
44
advance the object and purpose of the Act.   When clear
dichotomy   regarding   taking   cognizance   of   small   causes
suits presided by Civil Judge and by District Judge or
Additional   District   Judge   have   been   provided   for,   the
said   dichotomy   and   separation   to   take   cognizance   of
cases   has   to   be   followed   to   further   the   object   and
purpose of legislation.
36.   In  Pankaj Hotel case (supra), the Court took the
view   that   since   the   Court   of   District   Judge   or
Additional District Judge, which have been invested with
the power of small causes Court had unlimited pecuniary
jurisdiction,   they   can   validly   adjudicate   small   causes
suits   having   valuation   of   less   than   Rs.   1   lakh   even
after amendment by  Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2015, we do not approve the above view.   When the
Court   of  District   Judge   or   Additional   District   Judge
could no longer take cognizance of small cause suits of
having less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation, it was no longer
in   the   competence   of   Small   Cause   Court   presided   by
District Judge or Additional District Judge to proceed
45
to decide the suit of having valuation of less than Rs.
1 lakh.  Proper course was to transfer the cases before
a   competent   court   to   decide   the   suits.     It   is   a
different   matter   that   the   Court   of   District   Judge   or
Additional District Judge when proceeded to decide the
small cause suits after 07.12.2015 of valuation of less
than Rs. 1 lakh and neither any objection was raised by
either   of   the   parties   nor   attention   of   the   Court   was
drawn towards the amendment, Section 21 of the C.P.C. is
there to deal with such eventuality, which provision we
shall hereinafter deal separately.         
37. Learned Single Judge in  Pankaj Hotels' Case(Supra)
has referred to and relied on various judgments of this
Court which shall be referred to hereinafter.
38. Section   15   of   the   Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts
Act, 1887 bears the title “Cognizance of Suits by Courts
of Small Causes”. Sub­section (1) of Section 15 provides
that a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance
of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suit
46
excepted from the cognizance of Court of Small Causes.
Sub­section (2)(as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) provides
that all suits of the civil nature of which the value
does not exceed Rs.5,000/­ shall be cognizable by Court
of Small Causes.  As per the proviso to sub­section (2)
in   relation   to   suits   by   lessor   for   the   eviction   of
lessee from building after determination of lease, the
reference   of   Rs.5,000/­   shall   be   construed   as   a
reference to Rs.25,000/­. The keyword in the provision
is “shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes.” What
is   the   meaning   of   the   phrase   ‘Cognizable   by   Court   of
Small Causes’?
39. The   word   ‘Cognizance’  has  been   defined   in  Black’s
Law Dictionary in following manner: ­
 “Cognizance­
(1) A court’s right and power to try and to
determine cases; Jurisdiction,
(2)   The   taking   of   judicial   or
authoritative notice.
47
40. Advanced   Law   Lexicon   by   P.Ramanatha   Aiyar   defines
‘Cognizance’ in the following manner: ­
“Cognizance.­   Judicial   notice   or   knowledge;
the   judicial   recognition   or   hearing   of   a
cause;   jurisdiction,   or   right   to   try   and
determine causes. It is a word of the largest
import:embracing   all   power,   authority   and
jurisdiction.   The   word   “cognizance”   is   used
in the sense of “right to take notice of and
determine   a   cause.”   Taking   cognizance   does
not   involve   any   formal   action,   or   indeed
action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a
Magistrate, as such, applies his mind of the
suspected commission of an offence…..”
41. This Court in  (2004) 2 SCC 349, State of Himachal
Pradesh   vs.   M.P.Gupta,  had   occasion   to   consider   the
expression   ‘Cognizance’.   The   definition   of   word
‘Cognizance’   as   given   in   Black’s   Law   Dictionary   was
quoted with approval. In paragraph 10 of the judgment,
following was stated: ­
“10……According to Black’s Law Dictionary the
word   “cognizance”   means   “jurisdiction”   or
“the   exercise   of   jurisdiction”   or   “power   to
try   and   determine   causes”.   In   common
parlance, it means taking notice of. A court,
therefore,   is   precluded   from   entertaining   a
complaint   or   taking   notice   of   it   or
exercising   jurisdiction   if   it   is   in   respect
of   a   public   servant   who   is   accused   of   an
48
offence alleged to have been committed during
discharge of his official duty.
42. The   statutory   provisions   of   Section   15(2)   of
Provincial   Small   Cause   Courts   Act,   1887   uses   the
expression   “shall   be   cognizable   by   the   Court   of   Small
Causes”. The word ‘Cognizable’ is a word of wide import.
It takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision
of   a   case   cognizable   by   it.   In  Pankaj   Hotels   Case,
learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   had   noted   the
statement of objects of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,
2015   and   has   given   emphasis   on   word   “for   institution”
and   concluded   that   amendment   is   prospective   in   nature
and   is   applicable   only   to   suits   and   appeals   being
instituted after the amendment. When the plain word in
the   statute   i.e.   Section   15(2)   uses   the   word
“cognizable” whether “statements of objects and reasons”
which   uses   the   word   “institution”   shall   whittle   down,
the   word   ‘cognizable’   as   used   in   Section   15(2).   The
statement   of   objects   and   reasons   of   U.P.   Civil   Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2015, are to the following effect: ­
49
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
WHEREAS   the   value   of   the   subject   matters
brought   to   the   courts   has   increased
substantially,   the   pecuniary   jurisdiction   of
the   Civil   Courts   as   well   as   those   of   Small
Cause   Courts   in   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh
requires   to   be   raised   for   institution   of
Civil   Suits   and   appeals.   It   has,   therefore,
become   necessary   to   amend   the   Bengal,   Agra
and   Assam   Civil   Courts   Act,   1887   and
Provincial   Small   Cause   courts   Act,   1887   to
increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil
Courts and those of small Cause Courts in the
State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   for   securing   better
administration of Justice.
The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)
Bill, 2015 is introduced accordingly.”
43. It is true that statement of objects noticed that
value   of   subject   matters   brought   to   the   courts   has
increased   substantially,   hence,   pecuniary   jurisdiction
of the Civil Courts as well those of Small Causes Courts
in State of Uttar Pradesh requires to be raised for the
institution   of   civil   suits   and   appeals.   The   amendment
has   raised   pecuniary   limits   in   Provincial   Small   Cause
Courts  Act, 1887. The statement of objects and reasons
explains   the   reason   for   increase   of   pecuniary
jurisdiction   but   use   of   word   ‘for   institution’   in
50
statement of object cannot control the express language
of the statutory provisions.
44. A three­Judge Bench of this Court in  S.S. Bola v.
B.D. Sardana , (1997) 8 SCC 522, has held that statement
of objects and reasons of the statute can be looked into
only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent
only   when   the   meaning   of   statute   by   its   ordinary
language   is   obscure   and   ambiguous.   In   paragraph   176,
following was laid down: ­
“176…..But   it   is   a   cardinal   rule   of
interpretation that the Statement of Objects
and Reasons of a statute is to be looked into
as   an   extrinsic   aid   to   find   out   the
legislative   intent   only   when   the   meaning   of
the   statute   by   its   ordinary   language   is
obscure or  ambiguous. But if  the words used
in a statute  are clear and  unambiguous then
the statute itself declares the intention of
the legislature and in such a case it would
not be  permissible for  a  court  to interpret
the   statute   by   examining   the   Statement   of
Objects   and   Reasons   for   the   statute   in
question.”
45. In Subha Ram vs. state of maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC
506,   this   court   again   laid   down   that   statement   of
objects   and   reasons   can   be   looked   into   for   limited
purpose of ascertaining condition prevailing at the time
51
which   prompted   or   actuated   the   proposal   of   bill   to
introduce the same and the extent of existing evil of
the   society.   Further,   in  Bhaiji   vs.   Sub­Divisional
Officer, (2003) 1 SCC 692, this court again reiterated
the following principles of statutory interpretation in
paragraph 11:­
“11.  Reference   to   the   Statement   of   Objects
and Reasons is permissible for understanding
the   background,   the   antecedent   state   of
affairs,   the   surrounding   circumstances   in
relation  to the statute, and  the evil which
the statute sought to remedy. The weight  of
judicial   authority   leans   in   favour   of   the
view   that   the   Statement   of   Objects   and
Reasons cannot be utilized for the purpose of
restricting and controlling the plain meaning
of   the   language   employed   by   the   legislature
in drafting a statute and excluding from its
operation such transactions which it plainly
covers.   (See   Principles   of   Statutory
Interpretation   by   Justice   G.P.   Singh,   8th
Edn., 2001, pp. 206­09.)”
46. The   statement   of   object   of   U.P.   Civil   Laws
(Amendment)   Act,   2015   thus   explains   the   reason   for
bringing   the   amendment   for   increasing   the   pecuniary
jurisdiction   but   the   word   ‘institution’   used   in
statement   of   object   shall   not   control   the   expressed
language of Section 15. The expression ‘cognizance’ used
52
in Section 15 shall mean and include institution hearing
and   decision   of   the   case.   When   statute   provides   that
cognizance   of   particular   cause   is   to   be   taken   by   a
particular court, no other court can take cognizance of
the cause, since legislature never creates or provides
for   parallel   jurisdiction   in   two   different   courts   for
taking cognizance of a cause. When Section 15 provides
that all suits of civil nature of which the value does
not   exceed   Rs.25,000/­   “shall   be   cognizable   by   the
Courts of Small Causes”, the cognizance shall be taken
by that very Court and no other Court.
47. As   noted   above,   the   proviso   to   sub­section   (2)
provides   that   figure   Rs.5,000/­   shall   be   construed   to
Rs.25,000/­. By U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015,
the figure of Rs.25,000/­ stood substituted by Rs.1 lac.
Reading sub­section(2) read with proviso and U.P. Civil
Laws   (Amendment   Act),   2015   clearly   means   that   Small
Cause suits with valuation not exceeding Rs.1 lac shall
be   cognizable   by   Court   of   Small   Causes.   When   a   Small
Cause suit not exceeding value of Rs.1 lac is cognizable
53
by Court of Small Causes, obviously, no other court can
take cognizance. Additional District Judge to whom small
causes   suit   in   question   was   transferred   since   its
valuation was more than of Rs.25,000/­ was not competent
to   take   cognizance   of   the   suit   after   U.P.   Civil   Laws
(Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015, when the suit in
question   became   cognizable   by   Small   Causes   Court   i.e.
Court   of   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division.   To   the   above
extent, the judgment of learned Single Judge in Shobhit
Nigam’s Case  has to be approved and judgment of Single
Judge   in  Pankaj   Hotels   (Supra)  laying   down   that   even
after   07.12.2015,   the   Additional   District   Judge   had
jurisdiction   to   decide   the   suit   in   question   cannot   be
approved.
48. We   further   observe   that   learned   Single   Judge   in
Pankaj   Hotels   case  having   noticed   an   earlier   view   of
learned   Single   Judge   in  Shobhit   Nigam’s   case,   and   he
being of the opinion that judgment does not lay down the
correct   law,   appropriate   course   open   for   Single   Judge
was to refer the matter for consideration by a larger
54
bench. The judgments of the High Court are relied on and
followed by all sub­ordinate courts in the State. It is
always better to achieve certainty by an authoritative
opinion by the High Court instead of giving conflicting
views   by   different   learned   Single   Judges   which   may
confuse   the   litigants,   lawyers   and   sub­ordinate   courts
in applying the law.
ISSUE NO.3
49. It   is   the   submission   of   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant that even if the Additional District Judge was
not   competent   to   decide   the   small   causes   suit   on
22.10.2016,   the   judgment   of   the   Additional   District
Judge   was   not   liable   to   be   interfered   with   by   the
revisional court in view of Section 21 of the Code of
Civil   Procedure.   Section   21   of   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure relates to objection to jurisdiction. Section
21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:­
“21. Objections to jurisdiction. —   [(1)] No
objection as to the place of suing shall be
allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court
unless such objection was taken in the Court
55
of   first   instance   at   the   earliest   possible
opportunity and in all cases where issues are
settled   at   or   before   such   settlement,   and
unless there has been a consequent failure of
justice. 
[(2) No objection as to the competence of a
Court with reference to the pecuniary limits
of its  jurisdiction shall be  allowed by any
Appellate   or   Revisional   Court   unless   such
objection   was   taken   in   the   Court   of   first
instance   at   the   earliest   possible
opportunity,   and,   in   all   cases   where   issues
are   settled,   at   or   before   such   settlement,
and   unless   there   has   been   a   consequent
failure of justice.
(3) No objection as to the competence of the
executing   Court   with   reference   to   the   local
limits   of   its   jurisdiction   shall   be   allowed
by   any   Appellate   or   Revisional   Court   unless
such   objection   was   taken   in   the   executing
Court   at   the   earliest   possible   opportunity,
and   unless   there   has   been   a   consequent
failure of justice.]”
50. The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of Civil
Procedure   is   that   when   the   case   has   been   tried   by   a
court on merits and the judgment rendered, it should not
be   liable   to   be   reversed   purely   on   technical   grounds,
unless   it   has   resulted   in   failure   of   justice.   The
provisions   akin   to   Section   21   are   also   contained   in
Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 and Section
99 of Code of Civil Procedure. This Court had occasion
56
to   consider   the   principle   behind   Section   21,   Code   of
Civil   Procedure   and   Section   11   of   the   Suit   Valuation
Act,   1887   in  AIR   1954   SC   340,  Kiran   Singh   v.   Chaman
Paswan.   In   paragraph   7   of   the   judgment   following   was
laid down: ­
“7……The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99
of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of
the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely,
that when a case had been tried by a court on
the   merits   and   judgment   rendered,   it   should
not   be   liable   to   be   reversed   purely   on
technical grounds, unless it had resulted in
failure   of   justice,   and   the   policy   of   the
legislature   has   been   to   treat   objections   to
jurisdiction   both   territorial   and   pecuniary
as technical and not open to consideration by
an appellate court, unless  there  has been a
prejudice   on   the   merits.   The   contention   of
the   appellants,   therefore,   that   the   decree
and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr,
should   be   treated   as   a   nullity   cannot   be
sustained   under   Section   11   of   the   Suits
Valuation Act.”
51. One   more   submission   which   was   raised   in   the   said
appeal   was   considered   by   this   Court.   One   of   the
submission of the appellant who had instituted the suit
in   the   subordinate   court   was   that   as   per   the   revised
valuation, the appeal against the decree of subordinate
judge did not lay before the District Court but to the
57
High Court, hence, the judgment of the District Judge in
appeal should be ignored. The appeal in the High Court
be   treated   as   first   appeal.   It   was   contended   that
appellant   has   been   prejudiced   in   the   above   manner.
Rejecting   the   above   submissions,   this   court   laid   down
following in paragraphs 11 and 12:­
“11.………This   argument   proceeds   on   a
misconception. The right of appeal is no doubt
a substantive right, and its deprivation is a
serious prejudice; but the appellants have not
been deprived of the right of appeal against
the judgment of the Subordinate Court. The law
does provide an appeal against that judgment
to the District Court, and the plaintiffs have
exercised   that   right.   Indeed,   the
undervaluation   has   enlarged   the   appellants’
right of appeal, because while they would have
had only a right of one appeal and that to the
High   Court   if   the   suit   had   been   correctly
valued, by reason of the undervaluation they
obtained   right   to   two   appeals,   one   to   the
District Court and another to the High Court.
The complaint of the appellants really is not
that   they   had   been   deprived   of   a   right   of
appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate
Court, which they have not been, but that an
appeal on the facts against that judgment was
heard   by   the   District   Court   and   not   by   the
High  Court. This  objection  therefore  amounts
to this that a change in the forum of appeal
is   by   itself   a   matter   of   prejudice   for   the
purpose of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation
Act.
12. The question, therefore, is, can a decree
passed   on   appeal   by   a   court   which   had
58
jurisdiction to entertain it only by reason of
undervaluation,   be   set   aside   on   the   ground
that on a true valuation that court was not
competent to entertain the appeal? Three High
Courts   have   considered   the   matter   in   Full
Benches, and have come to the conclusion that
mere change of forum is not a prejudice within
the   meaning   of   Section   11   of   the   Suits
Valuation   Act.   Vide  Kelu   Achan  v.  Cheriya
Parvathi Nethiar Mool Chand v. Ram Kishan and
Ramdeo Singh  v.  Raj Narain. In our judgment,
the   opinion   expressed   in   these   decisions   is
correct………”
52. The   above   principle   has   been   reiterated   by   this
Court in AIR (1962) SC 199, Hiralal vs. Kalinath and AIR
1963   SC   634,   Bahrain   Petroleum   Co.   vs.   P.J.Pappu   and
Another.
53. This   court   in  (1993)   2   SCC   130,   R.S.D.V.   Finance
Company   Private   Limited   vs.   Shree   Vallabh   Glass   Works
Ltd.  had   again   considered   Section   21   of   the   Code   of
Civil   Procedure.   In   paragraphs   7   and   8,   following   has
been laid down: ­
“7………It may be further noted that the learned
Single Judge trying the suit  had recorded a
finding   that   the   Bombay   Court   had
jurisdiction   to   entertain   and   decide   the
suit.   Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   21   of   the
Code   of   Civil   Procedure   provides   that   no
objection as to the place of suing shall be
59
allowed by any appellate or revisional court
unless such objection was taken in the court
of   first   instance   at   the   earliest   possible
opportunity and in all cases where issues are
settled   at   or   before   such   settlement   and
unless   there   has   been   consequent   failure   of
justice.   The   above   provision   clearly   lays
down that such objection as to the place of
suing   shall   be   allowed   by   the   appellate   or
revisional   court   subject   to   the   following
conditions:
(i) That such objection was taken in the
court of first instance at the earliest
possible opportunity;
(ii)   in   all   cases   where   issues   are
settled then at or before such settlement
of issues;
(iii) there has been a consequent failure
of justice.
8.  In the present case though the first two
conditions   are   satisfied   but   the   third
condition   of   failure   of   justice   is   not
fulfilled.   As   already   mentioned   above   there
was   no   dispute   regarding   the   merits   of   the
claim. The defendant has admitted the deposit
of Rs 10,00,000 by the plaintiff, as well as
the issuing of the five cheques. We are thus
clearly of the view that there is no failure
of justice  to the defendant by  decreeing  of
the suit by the learned Single Judge of the
Bombay High Court, on the contrary  it would
be totally  unjust and failure of justice  to
the plaintiff in case such objection relating
to   jurisdiction   is   to   be   maintained   as
allowed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court in its appellate jurisdiction.”
60
54. In  (2005)   7  SCC   791, Harshad   Chiman   Lal   Modi   vs.
DLF   Universal   Ltd.,   this   court   had   again   considered
Section   21   and   other   provisions   of   Code   of   Civil
Procedure.   In   paragraph   30,   following   has   been   laid
down: ­
“30…………The   jurisdiction   of   a   court   may   be
classified   into   several   categories.   The
important   categories   are   (i)   territorial   or
local   jurisdiction;   (ii)   pecuniary
jurisdiction; and (iii) jurisdiction over the
subject­matter.   So   far   as   territorial   and
pecuniary   jurisdictions   are   concerned,
objection   to   such   jurisdiction   has   to   be
taken   at   the   earliest   possible   opportunity
and   in   any   case   at   or   before   settlement   of
issues. The law is well settled on the point
that   if   such   objection   is   not   taken   at   the
earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at
a   subsequent   stage.   Jurisdiction   as   to
subject­matter,   however,   is   totally   distinct
and   stands   on   a   different   footing.   Where   a
court   has   no   jurisdiction   over   the   subjectmatter
  of   the   suit   by   reason   of   any
limitation   imposed   by   statute,   charter   or
commission,   it   cannot   take   up   the   cause   or
matter.  An order passed by a court having no
jurisdiction is a nullity.”
55. Again   in  (2007)   13   SCC   650,  Subhash   Mahadevasa
Habib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, this court held that
there   is   distinction   between   lack   of   inherent
jurisdiction and objection to territorial and pecuniary
61
jurisdiction. This court noticed the amendments made in
Section   21   in   the   year   1976.   Following   was   stated   in
paragraph 34, 37 and 41:­
“34. It may be noted that Section 21 provided
that   no   objection   as   to   place   of   the   suing
can   be   allowed   by   even   an   appellate   or
revisional   court   unless   such   objection   was
taken in the court of first instance at the
earliest   possible   opportunity   and   unless
there   has   been   a   consequent   failure   of
justice.   In   1976,   the   existing   section   was
numbered   as   sub­section   (1)   and   sub­section
(2)   was   added   relating   to   pecuniary
jurisdiction   by   providing   that   no   objection
as to competence of a court with reference to
the   pecuniary   limits   of   its   jurisdiction
shall   be   allowed   by   any   appellate   or
revisional   court   unless   such   objection   had
been   taken   in   the   first   instance   at   the
earliest   possible   opportunity   and   unless
there   had   been   a   consequent   failure   of
justice………
37. As can be seen, Amendment Act 104 of 1976
introduced   sub­section   (2)   relating   to
pecuniary   jurisdiction   and   put   it   on   a   par
with   the   objection   to   territorial
jurisdiction   and   the   competence   to   raise   an
objection   in   that   regard   even   in   an   appeal
from the very decree. This was obviously done
in the light of the interpretation placed on
Section   21   of   the   Code   as   it   existed   and
Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act by this
Court   in   Kiran   Singh   v.   Chaman   Paswan5
followed  by Hiralal Patni v.  Kali Nath6  and
Bahrein   Petroleum   Co.   Ltd.   v.   P.J.   Pappu4.
Therefore,   there   is   no   justification   in
understanding the expression “objection as to
place of suing” occurring in Section 21­A as
62
being   confined   to   an   objection   only   in   the
territorial   sense   and   not   in   the   pecuniary
sense.   Both   could   be   understood,   especially
in the context of the amendment to Section 21
brought   about   by   the   Amendment   Act,   as
objection to place of suing.
41.  In   the   light  of   the   above,   it   is  clear
that   no   objection   to   the   pecuniary
jurisdiction of the court which tried OS No.
61 of 1971 could be raised successfully even
in an appeal against that very decree unless
it   had   been   raised   at   the   earliest
opportunity   and   a   failure   of   justice   or
prejudice was shown. Obviously therefore, it
could   not   be   collaterally   challenged.   That
too not by the plaintiffs therein, but by a
defendant whose alienation was unsuccessfully
challenged by the plaintiffs in that suit.”
56. Now,   reverting   back   to   facts   of   this   case   it   is
apparent   from   the   judgment   dated   22.10.2016   of
Additional   District   Judge,   that   no   objection   to   the
competence   of   Additional   District   Judge   to   decide   the
case   was   taken   by   any   of   the   parties.   No   objection
having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Additional   District   Judge,   Section   21   of   the   Civil
Procedure   Code   comes   into   play.   Sub­section   (2)   of
Section   21   provides   that   no   objection   as   to   the
competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary
63
limits   of   the   jurisdiction   shall   be   allowed   by   any
Appellate   or   Revisional   Court   unless   conditions
mentioned   therein   are   fulfilled.   No   objection   having
been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of
the Court. Sub­section (2) precludes the revisionist  to
raise   any   objection   regarding   competence   of   the   court
and further revisional court ought not to have allowed
such   objection   regarding   competence   of   Court   of
Additional   District   Judge   to   decide   the   suit.   The
respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding
competence   of   the   Court   and   took   a   chance   to   obtain
judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed
to turn­round and contend that the court of Additional
District   Judge   had   no   jurisdiction   to   try   the   Small
Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and
nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such
objection   by   unsuccessful   party   who   did   not   raise   any
objection regarding competence of court and allowed the
matter to be heard on merits.  Further, in deciding the
small   cause   suit   by   Additional   District   Judge,   the
64
tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
57. The   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   has   not
adverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In   judgment   of  Shobhit   Nigam(Supra)  also,   affect   of
Section 21 was neither considered nor raised. Section 21
contains a legislative policy which policy has an object
and   purpose.   The   object   is   also   to   avoid   retrial   of
cases on merit on basis of technical objections.
58.   There   is   another   judgment   of   Single   Judge   of   the
High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the
respondent i.e. SCC Revision No.305 of 2016, Tejumal vs.
Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392. In the above case,
learned   Single   Judge   had   allowed   the   revision   under
Section 25 against the judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed
by Additional District and Sessions Judge on the ground
that   the   judgment   of   Additional   District   Judge   was
without   jurisdiction.   In   paragraph   6   of   the   judgment,
High   Court   had   noticed   judgment   of   this   court   in
65
R.S.D.V.   Finance   Company   Private   Limited   vs.   Shree
Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. where it was held that in view
of   Section   21(1)   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,
objection as to the place of suing should be taken by
the party concerned in the court of first instance at
the earliest possible opportunity and the objection to
this   effect   shall   not   be   allowed   by   the   Appellate   or
Revisional   Court   but   relying   on   the   judgment   of   this
Court in  Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan, learned Single
Judge held that defect of jurisdiction whether pecuniary
or territorial or to the subject matter cannot be cured
and can be set up at any stage of the proceeding.
59. We   are   of   the   view   that   the   above   view   of   the
learned Single Judge is neither in consonance with the
judgment of this Court in  Kiran Singh’s case  nor with
R.S.D.V.   Finance   Company   Private   Limited   (supra)  which
has been noted and referred to by learned Single Judge.
Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislative
policy which cannot be ignored or given a go­by by the
litigants who challenges an unfavourable decision.
66
60.  We thus of the view that the view of the learned
Single Judge in  Tejumal Vs. Mohd. Sarfraj  does not lay
down the correct law and cannot be approved.
61. In   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   are   of   the   view
that High Court committed error in allowing the S.C.C.
Revision filed by the respondent tenant without taking
into   consideration   Section   21   of   the   Civil   Procedure
Code.
62. We thus hold that even when the court of Additional
District   Judge   was   not   competent   to   decide   the   Small
Causes Suit in question on the ground that the pecuniary
jurisdiction   is   vested   in   Court   of   Small   Causes   i.e.
Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division   w.e.f.   07.12.2015,   no
interference   was   called   in   the   judgment   of   Additional
District   Judge   in   the   exercise   of   Revisional
Jurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions of
Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code.
67
63. In result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of
the   High   Court   dated   07.12.2016   is   set   aside.   Parties
shall bear their own costs.
.....................J.
   ( A.K. SIKRI )
.....................J.
  ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI
October 12,2018.