OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS. v. VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.

A 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 B 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 go-by by the litigants who challenges an unfavourable decision.

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 D 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 E 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.

63. In result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High F Court dated 07.12.2016 is set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals allowed.