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 twenty­ five 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 sub­ section,  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  sub- section (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 re­ numbered as sub­section (1) thereof, and­­

(i) in sub­section (1), as so re­ numbered,  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 re­ numbered, 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 sub­ section, 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 Act­ 1887 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 re­

numbered 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 twenty­

five 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 Sub­ section (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 Sub­ section (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 Sub­ section (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 subject­ matter 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.