Whether civil judge junior division has jurisdiction to decide suit pertaining to judgment of C.J.S.D.?

 The applicant and the respondent wrongly assumed that because 

the present Suit pertains to a judgment of C.J.S.D. It should not be tried by a a C.J.S.D. This impression is obviously incorrect in view of S.15 of CPC. The C.J.J.D. is competent to try this suit because the C.J.J.D. is not examining the correctness and validity of the 

judgment and decree in the previous suit. The question between the parties is likely to be whether the defendants made false 

representation to the plaintiffs in respect of the ownership of the land on which the suit structure is standing and from which the plaintiffs are sought to be evicted pursuant to the judgment and decree Sp.Civil Suit No.5/76. Such question can certainly be decided by the 

C.J.J.D. The present suit could not have been valued on the basis of the license fee or the market value of the property but it should be as per S.6 (1) of Bombay Court Fees. So the suit should be tried by the Court of C.J.J.D.

Bombay High Court

C vs H on 18 July, 2013

Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

1. Smt Rajivas Vasu Shetty
 V/s.
1. Insanali Nasibdar
Citation;2013(5)ALL M R641



1. A decree was passed in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 1996 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane.Subsequently, a Regular Civil om
Suit No.663 of 2000 was filed by the Respondents for a declaration that a decree passed in Special Suit No.5 of 1996 be declared null and void and not binding upon the Plaintiff. It was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, B
Junior Division, Kalyan. Hence, an Application for transfer of the said Suit to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division was filed on the ground that the original decree was passed by the Court of Civil Judge,Senior Division, and hence the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division was not 
competent to declare such a decree to be null and void. ou
2. The trial Court dismissed the said Application and Misc.Civil C
Appeal Appeal No.8 of 2004 filed against it has been dismissed on 22.1.2004 by the learned District Judge Judge Thane. Relevant portion is h
contained in para 5 of the said Judgment which is reproduced below: 
" The applicant and the respondent wrongly assumed that because H
the present Suit pertains to a judgment of C.J.S.D. It should not be tried by a a C.J.S.D. This impression is obviously incorrect in view of S.15 of CPC. The C.J.J.D. is competent to try this suit because the C.J.J.D. is not examining the correctness and validity of the y
judgment and decree in the previous suit. The question between the parties is likely to be whether the defendants made false ba
representation to the plaintiffs in respect of the ownership of the land on which the suit structure is standing and from which the plaintiffs are sought to be evicted pursuant to the judgment and decree Sp.Civil Suit No.5/76. Such question can certainly be decided by the om
C.J.J.D. The present suit could not have been valued on the basis of the license fee or the market value of the property but it should be as per S.6 (1) of Bombay Court Fees. So the suit should be tried by the Court of C.J.J.D.
B

3. Section 15 of CPC states that every Suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. The Courts below have held that  in view of Section 15 of CPC, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division is 
competent to entertain, try and decide the Suit. I do not find any infirmity 
in the said view taken by the Courts below. Writ Petition is dismissed. 
RAVI K.DESHPANDE, J

Print Page